[DISCUSSION] When to use the Discard function?

[Mallorea and Riva]

This was a large part of the reasoning behind my suggestion to put proposals on-hold for a mod review prior to the approval stage.

That will kill any progress, because the moderators already don't respond to requests for legality reviews.

We certainly aren't going to review every single proposal that makes it to the queue for every possible legality violation. That simply wouldn't work. SP if you have outstanding legality requests please bump them so that they can be addressed.

[Separatist Peoples]

We certainly aren't going to review every single proposal that makes it to the queue for every possible legality violation. That simply wouldn't work. SP if you have outstanding legality requests please bump them so that they can be addressed.

I don't. I can't help but recall that Gruen waited, what was it, months for a ruling? On a few occasions, I don't think UFoC ever got his. I don't have a list of posts hanging around, but this has been an issue raised several times. That's why I pointed it out.

You can take that as an indictment of the moderation team's response time, or you can take it as an honest appraisal of why this action wouldn't work.

[Mallorea and Riva]

We certainly aren't going to review every single proposal that makes it to the queue for every possible legality violation. That simply wouldn't work. SP if you have outstanding legality requests please bump them so that they can be addressed.

I don't. I can't help but recall that Gruen waited, what was it, months for a ruling? On a few occasions, I don't think UFoC ever got his. I don't have a list of posts hanging around, but this has been an issue raised several times. That's why I pointed it out.

You can take that as an indictment of the moderation team's response time, or you can take it as an honest appraisal of why this action wouldn't work.

Gruen waited for a long time simply because I forgot to post his request to the proper place, that was entirely my fault. I don't know which UFoC request you're talking about so I can't speak to it. If you have suggestions for individuals who you think would make a good GA mod feel free to nominate them, we wouldn't mind bringing someone on board due to the RL circumstances of our various other GA mods.

[Separatist Peoples]

Gruen waited for a long time simply because I forgot to post his request to the proper place, that was entirely my fault. I don't know which UFoC request you're talking about so I can't speak to it. If you have suggestions for individuals who you think would make a good GA mod feel free to nominate them, we wouldn't mind bringing someone on board due to the RL circumstances of our various other GA mods.

None of which is the point. That was an explanation for why the original suggestion wouldn't work, though you're perfectly welcome to take it as you will.

Frankly, I don't believe there is anybody, myself included, qualified to take the job right now. I'd rather see all illegal proposals nuked with equal prejudice, regardless of whether they're at vote or not.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

So the system worked as it should have, and we didn't even need a discard to do it. Imagine that!

Y'know, guys, we did operate as an institution for 10+ years without a discard function, and there were very few actual disruptions making vote. The only difference we have now is an increasingly cloistered, disengaged moderator base. Increased failsafes are not going to solve the problem; in fact, they have only enhanced it in certain cases, in part because they only serve to enable the culture of inattentive moderation, rather than change or improve it.

So what's the other option Kenny? A proposal is at quorum and "might" be illegal, or worse a mod forgot to read the logs. What then? Does it get nuked, "just in case", right before it goes to vote? Sorry, been on the wrong end of that myself and it sucked. Had the discard function been around back then (conveniently enough, it came around just after that incident), the proposal could have continued along, whilst the mod responsible check the logs and noted it was legal.

If you were a GA mod, could you assure the user base that you will be online before EVERY update to ensure no illegal proposals squeak in? If so, let me know and I will submit your name for consideration.

You've completely missed the point. Policing the queue has not been a problem. It's how drafted proposals have been treated after they have stood up to scrutiny on the forums. (Which really makes it worse, since it's the players who make good-faith efforts that are being penalized - not necessarily the pinheads who submit drive-by proposals like Max Barry Day and never even show up on the forums defend them.) I can guarantee you that if the mods were more engaged in forum discussions, if they were more aware of what was coming before drafts were submitted, then they wouldn't have to kill so many resolutions after they've already gone to vote.

Case in point: Hack and Fris, who were among the more involved mods, admitted to maybe one illegal proposal that slipped past them to vote in the 4-5 years they were in charge of UN/WA modding; the current GA mods have had to use the discard four times already, in just the past two years. That's ridiculous. Giving mods more tools to do the jobs they were supposed to have already done by voting time just encourages them to be more "lazy" (for serious want of a better word) and disengaged. That is the point I was making.

[Araraukar]

Y'know, guys, we did operate as an institution for 10+ years without a discard function, and there were very few actual disruptions making vote.

Wasn't the Delegate approval count needed for quorum much higher back during NS-Organisation-That-Must-Not-Be-Named? (Or is my faulty memory being faulty again?)

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It was 6%, same as now.*

The raw number is actually much higher now than in the waning days of the UN/early days of the WA. It got as low as the mid-50s at times.


* It was briefly 10% before 2003, but that was before my time.

[Araraukar]

It was 6%, same as now.

My faulty memory is faulty, then.

But if the "Delegates moderate illegal proposals" was applied, it'd have to be much, much higher, and with longer time allowed in the submission line... and, from what I understand how it works for Delegates, they should have a vote button for "no support". (And please don't tell me to go to Technical forum with this. )

[Railana]

And at Auralia, where would you draw the line of obvious and non-obvious?

That's a difficult question to answer. I would say that duplication or contradiction is not obvious so long as a proposal author can make a plausible argument as to why their alleged duplication or contradiction isn't actually a problem. In such cases, I think the mods should withdraw and allow the WA to deal with the issue through voting down/repeal.

Now, you might argue that determining "plausibility" also requires a subjective assessment, and you'd be right. I don't think it's possible to completely eliminate the need for subjectivity on the part of the mods, so long as we want to have some sort of duplication or contradiction rule. But a plausibility standard would certainly be a higher bar for removal that our current one; this would result in fewer proposals being removed for dubious reasons, which I think will have a positive impact on the community of GA regulars.

[Sodastream]

if an issue is not relevant to your country, click the Dismiss link to get rid of it until a better issue comes up

[Separatist Peoples]

if an issue is not relevant to your country, click the Dismiss link to get rid of it until a better issue comes up

That has nothing to do with the conversation.

[Euroslavia]

if an issue is not relevant to your country, click the Dismiss link to get rid of it until a better issue comes up

if an issue is not relevant to your country, click the Dismiss link to get rid of it until a better issue comes up

That has nothing to do with the conversation.

What Separatist Peoples said. "Got Issues?" is the forum where one would discuss whether one should answer/dismiss issues.

[Sciongrad]

Y'know, guys, we did operate as an institution for 10+ years without a discard function, and there were very few actual disruptions making vote.

Wasn't the Delegate approval count needed for quorum much higher back during NS-Organisation-That-Must-Not-Be-Named? (Or is my faulty memory being faulty again?)

Even so, that won't change much. Scripts and stamps make the whole idea of quorum obsolete anyway. Anyone with the money or the patience to download Auralia's TG script can get anything to vote.

[Separatist Peoples]

I still think raising the percentage from 6% to 8% would help filter out some of that...

[Wallenburg]

I still think raising the percentage from 6% to 8% would help filter out some of that...

Unfortunately, that would only reinforce the importance of campaign telegrams.

[Separatist Peoples]

I still think raising the percentage from 6% to 8% would help filter out some of that...

Unfortunately, that would only reinforce the importance of campaign telegrams.

Keeps out the crap, though. And potentially makes more cash for the site. I can't much say I would mind that, or that it would be bad for the game.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

We certainly aren't going to review every single proposal that makes it to the queue.

I'm sorry to hear that. I thought you already did, and I think you should. If rules are not to be enforced they seem pointless.

The nature of the rules is such that (under current technology) they can't be automated. That leaves a human review as the only reasonable option, and it seems to me that the Mods are the people best placed to do that. Your continuation "..for every possible legality violation." implies that the review has to be 100% accurate, which goes beyond what I'm suggesting. Unless I've missed something, there are a few issues (category error, severity, game or RL references) which form the vast bulk of the problems. Surely a careful read-through by an experienced editor would suffice to catch most of those without requiring an excessive time commitment?

If problems are spotted later, they could still be addressed by a GHR, but I believe having a consistent early check might actually serve to reduce the overall amount of work for the Mods. In computing it is generally well established that the earlier you catch a problem the lower the cost implications will be.

[Araraukar]

Unless I've missed something, there are a few issues (category error, severity, game or RL references) which form the vast bulk of the problems. Surely a careful read-through by an experienced editor would suffice to catch most of those without requiring an excessive time commitment?

This is why the Silly/Illegal thread exists on this forum - several regulars post those seriously illegal proposals there, easing up the mods' workload. Things that are drafted on the forum and still end up being submitted as illegal, are the ones that generate GHRs for the mods to check.

If problems are spotted later, they could still be addressed by a GHR

I'm fairly sure that's already the most common type of GHR that the mods get that involves the GA.

but I believe having a consistent early check might actually serve to reduce the overall amount of work for the Mods.

Erm, do you actually read the Silly/Illegal thread? It's better that the crapton of crap that gets submitted all the time is read over by lots of people pointing out the illegalities, thus making it easier for mods to enforce the proposal rules, rather than eating up a lot of their time, when they have everything on the Moderation forum to deal with, too.

(Please note I'm not trying to suck up to the mods, it's just that I do read Moderation forum for amusement and education. )

[Wallenburg]

(Please note I'm not trying to suck up to the mods, it's just that I do read Moderation forum for amusement and education. )

I'm not the only person here who takes pleasure in other people's suffering? Yay!

[Bears Armed]

I still think raising the percentage from 6% to 8% would help filter out some of that...

That would just make it harder for those of urrs who still rely on 'manual' TG campaigns rather than scripts or stamps...

[Almonaster Nuevo]

Unless I've missed something, there are a few issues (category error, severity, game or RL references) which form the vast bulk of the problems. Surely a careful read-through by an experienced editor would suffice to catch most of those without requiring an excessive time commitment?

This is why the Silly/Illegal thread exists on this forum - several regulars post those seriously illegal proposals there, easing up the mods' workload. Things that are drafted on the forum and still end up being submitted as illegal, are the ones that generate GHRs for the mods to check.

If problems are spotted later, they could still be addressed by a GHR

I'm fairly sure that's already the most common type of GHR that the mods get that involves the GA.

but I believe having a consistent early check might actually serve to reduce the overall amount of work for the Mods.

Erm, do you actually read the Silly/Illegal thread? It's better that the crapton of crap that gets submitted all the time is read over by lots of people pointing out the illegalities, thus making it easier for mods to enforce the proposal rules, rather than eating up a lot of their time, when they have everything on the Moderation forum to deal with, too.

(Please note I'm not trying to suck up to the mods, it's just that I do read Moderation forum for amusement and education. )

All of which is fine. I'm not suggesting that the existing reports should stop. Where do you get that from?

[Araraukar]

All of which is fine. I'm not suggesting that the existing reports should stop. Where do you get that from?

...from you wanting mods only to do all that? Also, when quoting longer posts in their entirety, spoiler the post for brevity.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I still think raising the percentage from 6% to 8% would help filter out some of that...

That would just make it harder for those of urrs who still rely on 'manual' TG campaigns rather than scripts or stamps...

Easy. Just make the quorum threshold higher for the stamp/script campaigners.



8% of 1,597 = 127. A tough hurdle to clear for manual TGing, but not at all impossible. Back in "our day," quorum was regularly 130 or more, and the only legal campaigning method was manual...

[Wallenburg]

That would just make it harder for those of urrs who still rely on 'manual' TG campaigns rather than scripts or stamps...

Easy. Just make the quorum threshold higher for the stamp/script campaigners.

8% of 1,597 = 127. A tough hurdle to clear for manual TGing, but not at all impossible. Back in "our day," quorum was regularly 130 or more, and the only legal campaigning method was manual...

It was 6%, same as now.*

The raw number is actually much higher now than in the waning days of the UN/early days of the WA. It got as low as the mid-50s at times.

* It was briefly 10% before 2003, but that was before my time.

These posts contradict one another.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Easy. Just make the quorum threshold higher for the stamp/script campaigners.

8% of 1,597 = 127. A tough hurdle to clear for manual TGing, but not at all impossible. Back in "our day," quorum was regularly 130 or more, and the only legal campaigning method was manual...

It was 6%, same as now.*

The raw number is actually much higher now than in the waning days of the UN/early days of the WA. It got as low as the mid-50s at times.

* It was briefly 10% before 2003, but that was before my time.

These posts contradict one another.

They don't.