TLP reform

Now that's a great compromise suggestion!

ETA quote from post being commented on because page topper.

edited 16th Mar '17 8:09:06 AM by Candi

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett

TLP heralds seem promising and is in fact an old proposal. Need volunteers with staying power, though.

Solutions that require approval are bureaucratic and tend to make problems with backlogs. Further I think that part of the reason why they keep being proposed is that most tropers who propose such things are adept at navigating bureaucracies and thus won't feel any issues. Which is probably a big reason why most systems tend to become ever more bureaucratic.

One somewhat crazy proposal which may have the same issue is to limit who can make drafts or launches in TLP by edit count or tenure.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

On the issue of a vetting board, on the one hand, the 5P seems to be working pretty well, and that requires what seems to me to be a higher level of 'off-time' effort that TLP would, since they have to actually go read or watch the works in question, where TLP vetting would be all right here; the decision would be made on the basis of what's either in TLP itself or in a sandbox if the launcher goes that route and pre-preps the page.

On the other hand, the 5P has had problems with drop-outs...

On the bureaucracy thing, it would only be as bureaucratic as we build it to be. It could be as simple as ""click a "Queue to Launch" button, which send a notification the vetting board, who either thumbs up it ( ready to launch now.) or thumbs down it (not ready to launch.) If they thumbs-down it, give them a comments window to say what problems they see with it and send it back to the TLP.

(Although that may be that when I hear "bureaucratic" I think more of the "go here, now go there, then do this, fill out these three forms and send them to two different addresses, and we'll get back to you" type of hoop-jumping businesses and government is so fond of. If that's not what you mean, then I apologize for misinterpreting you.)

edited 16th Mar '17 9:46:15 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

To me "bureaucratic" is when people demand processes and approvals for things and compliance with rules. It's not always a bad thing but it is often - eventually - overdone.

5P also has timeliness issues lately, so it's not that fine an example.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

There's also the same access issues, even if a data cap wouldn't be quite as big a deal.

The bureaucracy bottleneck problem is why I liked Waterblap's flag suggestion. It wouldn't block launches if there's no heralds/whatever-title online for a time, but it will give a "stamp of approval" that will aid the current sponsors and participants in knowing it's good enough for launch.

Of course, there'd have to a new guideline added to the no launching tropes willy-nilly rule: no launching a trope just because it has such a flag, since the sponsor/participants may want to tweak/finish cleanup before launch.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett

Actually the biggest problem we've had is members dying. So, you know. Not quite something that can be planned for. On the other hand, there's no need for the TLP to be limited to only five members, which will cut down on the damage any sort of unexpected dropout causes.

Going through the history of the very first P5 panel, didn't two members drop out (one in a bit of a temper, the other just poof)? One of the reasons tgoodrich was appointed was because only you, Discar, and Komodin were present at the time.

Or is this one of the things that came to light later and I missed?

But that's a fair point that TLP heralds/mission control/whatever could probably ring in at more than five members. Although too many is another problem.

(Mission control, launch pad... I'll show myself out)

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett

Well, part of the problem caused by P5 members disappearing is that that panel specifically requires 3 votes to do anything.

The TLP panel wouldn't need to have that requirement built in; if we choose people who have a good grasp of what makes a good page, it could be handled the same way the mods handle custom-titling: any one of us can approve or decline a request by ourselves, or we can pass on it and let one of the others decide if there's some reason we don't want to make the call. That would reduce the probability of a backlog developing and holding on for more than a very short time.

edited 16th Mar '17 2:25:15 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Even if you did decide "three votes", you'd do that if you had like a Council of Thirteen for TLP; it might require three more positive opinions than negative opinions. Then the "hats" system could be changed to bring threads to their attention.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

While I think having a vetting board would help with quality control, I think that gives too much power to the power-users and would limit ideas coming out of the TLP.

I used to heavily use Ykttw to adopt old drafts, and might still be considered a "power-user" there. I always think TLP as the place where new, fresh ideas are fleshed out into full pages. In terms of purpose, the influx of new ideas keeps the wiki from stagnating (TRS keeps it running). That flow of ideas should enter the wiki as quality pages, but it should stay as new ideas.

I guess my main criticism against having a vetting board is it means existing power-users would have a strong say on "what is a trope."^note  I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. If anything, I'm pointing at users like myself. I usually want to see a trope that neatly fits in the existing schema and doesn't challenge the status quo. I think a lot of power-users would want tropes that aren't "hard" or raise questions about existing tropes. I have trope drafts I don't like or don't understand, but that doesn't mean they're not valid. I'd worry that "quality control" would become "culture control".

...

Maybe instead of vetting, the board would make sure launched tropes are integrated into the wiki(index, wicks, etc.). Sort of an expanded purpose crash rescue.

edited 16th Mar '17 8:55:31 PM by pokedude10

Another reason Waterblap's flag idea would be useful. The flags wouldn't block launches, which would limit "power-users" ability to unconsciously make tropes conform to a personal status quo.

Along with the fact that if someone actually did show a pattern of bias, they'd probably have their permissions turned off so fast their heads would spin for a week.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett

If we do implement some kind of vetting board, we might need to do something different for people who want to get help writing a works page using the TLP. After all, Works Pages Are A Free Launch.

edited 18th Mar '17 8:58:06 AM by UNoWho

They do sometimes have problems, as the YKTTW crash rescue thread participants know.

Another reason to have flags instead of programming blocking launches.

A TLP panel could use a 'looks good' or whatever flag on a work draft too, though, to signify it's in a complete condition, where it won't get booted to the Rescue thread for problems.

edited 18th Mar '17 6:30:15 PM by Candi

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett

A tag for "Is a Work Page" could flag any automated system that "this page is a free launch." Having a group of troopers with their names specifically attached to tags could mean that such tags wouldn't be misused (without an easy way to identify perpetrator).

That said, I don't think such a board for vetting is necessary. I agree with Pokedude that TLP should be more free flow than a vetting board would allow. I think a group of "heralds" or "medics" could help sponsors or adopters with their drafts, but I don't think they should vote or put up road blocks or be used to get through "customs" (to get approved before launch).

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

I'd definitely agree to have "heralds" / "medics" act as a helping hand to drafts and drafters. TLP often has a lot of new tropers, and while there is a lot of documentation on the launch process, many new drafters have difficulty turning "trope idea" => "trope" => "launch-ready page." Especially since the current system punishes poor descriptions during early drafts.

I think having a team of heralds / medics plus an improved launch or hat system (which allows for early brainstorming without judgement) would help tropers turn valid ideas into workable tropes.

---

Edit: # 61. Candi, it's not really a "bias," but rather a "mindset" towards easy, uncomplicated drafts. For example, let's say there's a draft "X" which realizes that it's a supertrope to existing tropes A, B, and maybe C. It may then realize that it also causes subtrope C to be too narrow to trope if there's a more general supertrope. The trope draft may be valid, but most tropers would not want to put existing tropes up for reevaluation because of a new draft.

The natural inclination would be to reject the "difficult" trope and keep the status quo. We can't show clear bias of the vetter because it's not a bias, it's a natural mindset to take the easy option. As mentioned in my last post, that goes against the point of TLP to keep new ideas flowing into the wiki.

edited 20th Mar '17 11:50:36 AM by pokedude10

So what we have are:

• Bring back flags, except the Motion to Discard.

• Split the hat/bomb system into three parts, with the new part involving 'under construction' symbol/message. Hopefully it will make it easier to indicate good, needs work, and dump it.

• People leaving hats/UC/bombs having to leave a message, either via drop down menu or comment box. Hopefully will cut down on trolls and drive bys.

• Potentially -possibly, maybe- having a TLP panel to monitor things.
  • The TLP panel would possibly have special flags for trope and work pages, to help indicate 'yes, this is good/what we're looking for'.
  • The panel members would not be able to unilaterally block launches.

• Cultivating a culture in TLP to cut back on drive bys and rogue launches.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much that can be done to block rogue launches without messing up launches for everyone else.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett

As someone who's currently getting a few drafts in. I'd like an "Under constriction" symbol. Both to ensure it wouldn't be launched until its ready and as a possible way to stop rouge launches.

A way to link a draft (and therefore the launched trope after launch) to any TRS thread that spawned it could be nice. I don't know if there would be a way to do that. Maybe have a special tag ("From TRS" or something) and then later down the line tie that particular tag to a special chain of code for tying any draft to a particular TRS thread.

If we have "medics," then I think something like this could work, where this tag could only be used by people who can be held accountable (e.g. the "medics").

It might be able to help people looking at old drafts for now-abandoned TRS projects that didn't have the manpower. idk, it just sounds like something some tropers might be interested in if there was a way to do that.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

~Water Blap, that can be done simply by starting the draft by the sponsor putting a link to the thread in the Opening Post. It doesn't require a widget.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

That is true. I may have been over-thinking it. I was thinking along the lines of "over time" where the TRS thread is completely forgotten, but now that I think about it, that probably has such a limited benefit as to not be worth the coding effort. I'll just tack that as brainstorming.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

I'm still thinking that requiring a few days from creation to Launch (current standard), requiring a minimum number of active hats (probably three, also current standard) with no active toolkits/bombs (new consideration), and allowing hats, toolkits, and bombs to expire after roughly a week (also new) would help prevent rogue launches from the pad.^note Launches that are truly Rogue wouldn't bother with the pad at all and should be subject to scrutiny, but that seems to be outside the scope of this discussion. Having a draft get Morgued after 2 weeks without any active hats would also help cull dead suggestions.

Ketchum's corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced tactic is indistinguishable from blind luck.

I kind of like the idea of bombs and hats expiring after a few months, but not about the entire draft being nuked after a time limit. Even good drafts can take weeks or months to churn out.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

That would work if we were trying to speed up TLP. But that's not the concern, we want higher quality, not faster throughput. A clock that kills a draft after some period without active hats will increase the tendency of people to throw hats on things that don't deserve them, to keep them from being morgued. Doubly so if hats also "expire".

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Why are we having this discussion only now? Has the TLP output quality dropped recently compared to one year ago? My 2ct:

• Disallow the creation of pages under Main without a TLP thread.
• I am for a relative rocket/bomb count system (like 4:1 for passing). In a net count system one could probably launch with 5 bombs and 10 rockets while the amount of bombs would indicate something wrong with the draft.
• I found the old tagging system terrible because of the limited control after tagging.
• I like the idea of keeping separate accounts for tropeworthyness and launch-readiness of a draft. Either via dropdowns or mandatory comments.
• Moderation (herolds?) is a good idea. Superbomb function is okay.
• Not a fan of expiry dates. How easily can a morgued draft be revived if new examples come in?

We've been having this discussion for quite some time, in various other threads. Why did it get a dedicated thread now? because now we've got devs who are going to be able to actually work on it, which we didn't have before. But for them to make any changes, they've got to know what to change and what to change it to. Make sense?

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.