Replacing the 5P system

So, the 5P system was installed in 2012 and has now developed a giant backlog. Folks have been thinking of a replacement mechanism, so here goes nothing.

I've been thinking of a few possible approaches:

• Reduce the quorum for 5P decisions from 3 to 2.
• Find additional members to fill for inactive tropers.
• Ditch the 5P system completely in favour of a threaded discussion.

I'd prefer the last option. The 5P system in general is...outdated. The wiki has changed a lot and I think the work the 5P do can be easily handled with a cleanup thread of volunteers, none of whom are forced to be in the discussion at all times to get things done.

Go for third.

Yeah, the last option is better.

Edited by callmeamuffin on Feb 27th 2021 at 6:01:45 AM

Agreed with a cleanup thread. Maybe we could have a crowner of certain works to vote on, but that has the potential problem of drive-by voting, so the current P5 discussion process applied to the general public would probably be best. Then we don't have to wait several months after bringing up an obvious porn comic for it to be officially cut.

I'm in favor of a cleanup thread as well. The current system is a holdover from years ago, and could definitely stand to be replaced.

I like the idea of a cleanup thread. Maybe make it like the Complete Monster cleanup thread where you have to do effortposts?

Not a fan of the effortpost system in general - but especially not for something where we want to encourage people to bring up problematic content. There should not be an effort barrier to doing so.

We can definitely do the threaded discussion, though.

We already have sort-of templates listed on The Content Policy and the 5P Circuit and this post that would work if we want to do an "effort post" kind of format. I don't think it would discourage posting because it's not nearly as restrictive as the effort posts for trope examples.

I mean, if you'd rather not delve further into the illicit material, you needn't be involved in the more intense voting process. I think you can cast a vote just by looking up summaries as long as somebody has enough information to declare whether it's porn or pedoshit.

Edited by mightymewtron on Feb 26th 2021 at 6:52:43 AM

The only problem I'd have with replacing the P5 system is that right now it does at least make informed decisions an important part of the process. Opening it up to general discussion would either involve losing that, or it would make people have to potentially read some really nasty shit they'd rather avoid in order to cast a vote.

A crowner system definitely feels like a bad idea. There are enough accusations of drive by voting and things working by popularity in TRS, I feel like it would be far worse here.

We'd need to figure out the required ratio of votes and the minimum, though.

Edited by Discar on Feb 26th 2021 at 5:45:02 AM

Maybe we can have a certain amount of time to discuss the work, then everybody has to cast a vote on the thread. Maybe there can be a minimum amount of time to cast the vote before it's called (with each vote having some reasoning attached as opposed to just "cut" and "keep") and the majority decision reigns supreme.

I still think the idea of the P5 can remain, with a group of people dedicated to the issues who confirm the votes, but the discussion can be open to the community?

Which is why I think it would work better with a Trope Repair Shop or Image Pickin kind of structure, where we vote on works as a community. To avoid drive-by voting, we'd simply vote through comments, maybe within a specific amount of time.

Edited by mightymewtron on Feb 26th 2021 at 9:14:07 AM

My biggest issue with the P5 is that it requires this one group of people to always be around to pitch in, or else we have issues like our months-long wait to cut Zoey The Vampire. That's why I think it should be scrapped entirely- because it shouldn't be a commitment and people should be able to get things done without relying on people who may or may not even use the site anymore.

I like the idea of opening it to a community cleanup thread

I agree with ditching the system entirely. This was created when we didn't really have a good idea of what can go and what can stay, and it's been nearly 10 years.

If the P5 is to be updated or done away with, the The Content Policy and the 5P Circuit really needs an update. A lot of it is dated. The aim for family friendliness is especially out of place for what the P5 does and what TVT categorizes in general.

I think the P5 should be expanded. Maybe to 7 or 8 members.

Edited by DrPsyche on Feb 27th 2021 at 7:52:40 AM

I like the idea of a threaded discussion, maybe even one that the 5P (if kept) oversee/curate/have the final say on.

Definite to crowners, anonymous crowner votes for this topic definitely has the potential to be sketchy.

If we turn this into a project forum/threaded discussion, I don't see any reason to keep the P5. The reason this change is being considered is because the P5 system has become more backed up than a cheap sewer line, so if the P5 have to curate, it's back to that again.

Edited by Ramidel on Mar 1st 2021 at 10:47:59 AM

Maybe instead of all of the P5 needing to be involved, any one of them can oversee any particular discussion and serve as the messenger to the moderators? Maybe we can still use the "angel/devil" voting thing, but not necessarily limited to three of either icon, and the P5 member's job will be to keep track of these votes and remind us of the current verdict while adding it to the report. Unless we want that duty to be sent to a mod, but the mods are pretty overwhelmed as is.

I agree that a cleanup thread will be good. But not for crowners - its better to present arguments and count with reasons in mind.

As far as I understand the coding side of things, some the technical P5 role will still be needed to rubberstamp outcomes in the reporting tool. It could be expanded to more of the active participants in the threads though.

Edited by Adannor on Mar 2nd 2021 at 2:37:22 PM

An admin has expressed interest in rewriting the 5P code, FWIW.

Regarding my own stances, I am pretty firmly and non-negotiably opposed to crowners. They'll just invite drive-by voting, ballot stuffing and complaints about drive-by voting and ballot stuffing. This is a Pandora's box that I would leave well closed.

I don't think that one cleanup thread is a good approach, though. Stuff can get lost in a megathread and gauging consensus is hard there. I'd favour an one thread per flagged item principle akin to TRS, so that we can focus discussions.

That sounds reasonable.

Yeah, that seems reasonable. I think we should have some kind of effortpost framework where people (OP) has to present evidence that the work is problematic.

So it would be akin to the old locked discussions in this subforum?

I second the individual threads per flagged item.

Would the process be "report the page, then start a thread for it" so we can still keep track of the items? Or would the content violation list just become a moot point now?