As some of you know, the number of drafts in the "staff" folder is larger and many drafts are substantially older than the number of drafts in the pool folder. Currently, there are 143 staff folder drafts versus 116 pool folder drafts (although experience says about 30-50% of the pool folder drafts will ultimately need to be deleted), and about 80-90 of the staff drafts are from 2016 or earlier versus 4 of the pool folder drafts. Although every editor is told their writing is going to take a backseat to editing other issues when they become editors, this situation is still causing some editors frustration. They feel as though much of their work is never going to get added to the game and frequently their drafts get outdated and overlap issues added to the game much later that were authored by players.
There is a tricky balancing act here, on the one hand, you, the authors and GI commenters, are the lifeblood of the GI community. We absolutely want to reward our authors. I know there is a relationship between the editing team being more responsive and quickly adding drafts to the game and how rewarding authorship can be. I remember vividly when my first issue was added to the game, the speed that it was added was a major morale and confidence boost. On the other hand, the morale of editors is also important. We are volunteers and if we lose interest in this work then issues aren't going to get added to the game at all.
Previously, there were restrictions on the number of staff edits an editor could perform (one in every five issues), about a year ago, seeking greater balance, Sedge made a post similar to mine here, and as a result, those restrictions were dropped. The current rules for editor self-edits are that an editor may edit an issue they wrote one out of every ten issues they edit. This rule has been in place since self-edits were allowed. The number of other editors needing to sign off on a self-edit is also higher than a normal edit (4 versus 2). We are considering dropping the number issues an editor needs to edit between self-edits from one in ten to one in five. We are also considering reducing the number of editors needing to sign-off on a self-edit from 4 to 3.
Nothing has been decided one way or another yet, and I would like your feedback on these potential changes. Whether you just enjoy commenting on issues, are an aspiring first-time author, or have authored more issues than me, your opinion matters here. So how do these potential changes make you feel? Do you have other opinions on how to best seek the balance I mentioned earlier?
