Policy Review PRC Review

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus


This is probably the most jumbled Policy Review Committee thread you will ever see. There is no overarching direction here; no policy that needs to be enacted. The reason I'm kicking us off with this thread is because I want us all to take a step back and review how we currently work Policy Review here at the Create-A-Pokemon Project. Let's address any problems that we notice here and now.

If you recall the CAP Mission Statement, you'll note two things of interest. One, we're all about "People that participate in the project are expected to present reasoned ideas and to engage in intelligent debate of those ideas." Our ultimate goal is to have intelligent discussion and debate about the creation and execution of a competitive Pokemon, no? So it comes to reasoning that the Policy Review Committee should serve that goal. We should be entirely focused on those discussions. Two, we're a democratic project. That's why we even have a Policy Review Committee; most forums have a leadership team that provides leadership at their discretion.

So what's the issue? Well, I often get personally frustrated with the Policy Review Committee because I feel that it rules us rather than us using it as a tool. We all grumble and moan about the time it takes between projects to discuss important topics. That's entirely understandable; we're all here to create Pokemon, not policy! But decisions need to be made in order to have intelligent Pokemon discussion and creation. So, we slog through the PR cycle once again. And in the end, we are bound by its rules.

I want to break away from that binding -- hence this thread. I don't have a proposal, but I'd love to see as a creative thinktank to resolve this problem. I have numerous suggestions. Some are great, some are awful. Decide for yourselves:
  • All Policy Review Committee threads are put on a timer when created (one week). They need to be done by that time with a decision reached.
  • Policy for the Create-A-Pokemon Project is handed to the moderators, who will work with community members to revise the project as needed.
  • The Policy Review Committee will not have a "block of time" as it has now, but rather, will run concurrently with the creation process.
  • Different PRC members run and update individual threads (note, we're sort of doing this now with mixed results).
There isn't a solid direction to head from here. We have a lot of options presented, and I cannot decide on a direction alone. What we need to do is critically reflect on the Policy Review Committee and work on our biggest flaws. I am personally frustrated with the program and think seeing some sort of change in how we approach policy is much needed. At the end of the day, we want to make Pokemon, not rules. Let's adjust our Policy Review to serve as a tool to meet that goal.
 

ginganinja

It's all coming back to me now
is a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Yea I really think the PRC should be a rolling thing, since you can get so much more done that way. By all means, set deadlines as to when stuff should actually be implemented but I don't see why we need to have a stop start process when we could be having a cap creation process and a prc thread going on at the same time. I fully support a timer on threads, although personally I think we have an informal one anyway so it shouldn't be a pressing concern.

Birkal can you go into more detail upon:

  • Policy for the Create-A-Pokemon Project is handed to the moderators, who will work with community members to revise the project as needed.
As its difficult for me to understand without an example / frame of reference and thus I don't yet have an opinion on it.
 

Vryheid

fudge jelly
I've been considering how to go about discussing the topic of the CAP metagame from a broad perspective, covering topics like what we want the CAP metagame to look like and what kind of influence should community should have on what rules the tier uses. But lo and behold, a number of discussions from the past few years have covered similar topics already:

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/proposal-a-cap-metagame-suspect-system.3471271/
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/policy-review-the-future-of-the-cap-metagame.3464881/
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/policy-review-cap-revisions.3466432/

What I get out of reading these threads is a that there are a lot of insightful viewpoints and highly relevant responses being posted, but a lack of direction preventing any sort of meaningful consensus. I feel like if any threads on the topic of the CAP meta are perpetually stuck in the realm of philosophical debate, then we aren't really going to improve the meta in any significant way. My opinion on whether or not anything should change as described in this thread is based off of how I'd like to see these kinds of threads develop.

That all being said, I'm reluctant to support or oppose any of the listed options above simply because I don't have any personal experience with the process. In addition, the idea of handing over control to the mods sounds like it ruins the point of having a PRC in the first place. However, I feel like some aggressively enforced time limits on some policies would be useful in focusing discussion.
 

Korski

Distilled, 80 proof
is a CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
The only reason PRC should interfere with the CAP Process (making CAPs) is if something comes up in the previous CAP Project that requires addressing so that it doesn't become a problem in future CAPs. Outside of generational updates to the process (as we did last round) or systemic overhauls (as we did after Gen5CAP4/CAP 15/Aurumoth), the PRC doesn't spend tons of time tweaking the actual CAP process. Look at the list of topics on the docket for this PRC cycle:
The Mechanics of the PRC
The State of the CAP Metagame
CAP Pre-Evolutions
Mega Evolutions
Others Topics Recommended by the PRC
If we started CAP19 today, would any of this stuff get in the way? Apart from the nebulous "Other Topics," these are all peripheral topics that can be discussed in their own time at their own speed. I think the problem lies in our separating "CAP time" from "PRC time," as though they can't be run concurrently despite not even involving one another (echoing ginganinja, referring to Birkal's third bullet). There could be a couple issues here, though: a) the (not unlikely) possibility of a dropoff in PRC participation while a CAP Project is active; b) PR Topics being abandoned or forgotten about with no conclusion due to lack of consensus or interest (this already happens and has been happening forever); c) PRC potentially turning into an airing of grievances exclusive to a select few community members (referencing Birkal's fourth bullet); and/or d) how/when to remove users from the PRC when it is technically always running (adding new members isn't hard at all with rolling applications). I believe bits and pieces of Birkal's suggestions, like time limits, could help prevent these issues, although I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all solution to the diversity of topics we cover and the urgency they would individually require.

If there was a problem with the actual process that needed addressing before the following CAP, the PRC should give that problem enormous priority and deal with it as swiftly and conclusively as possible. Still, if we wanted to overhaul, say, Movepool Submissions, we'd have weeks to hash it out before movepool discussions started, longer if we could tackle PRC issues as soon as they arise (in the rolling format). If we wanted to overhaul Concept Submissions, though, we'd have to get that settled very quickly (again, only if we have to wait until the CAP in question is finished before beginning to discuss it). In most cases, when the most recent CAP runs smoothly enough to not require an intervention, as I believe CAP18 did, we should be able to move along with another project and tackle the peripheral topics separately.

Great topic.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Official Graybeard the Unmerciful Post.

Why "PRC Time" and "CAP Time" have been separated:

Aurumoth is probably the best recent example of why we don't run PRC and CAP concurrently. PRC time is supposed to reflect back on the most recent project and address any issues or concerns arising from the process on things that either have or have not changed. Can you imagine any of the OPs in the aftermath of Aurumoth occurring while the project was ongoing? How about evaluating the TL + TLT System in midstream of its first implementation or second go-round.

The PRC is a tool. A tool primarily for post-mortem analysis and assessment that would be impractical if not impossible to do in the midst of an ongoing project. Even if you were to run it concurrently, anything you would decide of importance would by necessity have to be applied to the next CAP project.

The history of the CAP Metagame PRC Threads:

The biggest problem with CAP Metagame discussion is that it is an unspeakable anomaly during the CAP project itself. You can't make arguments about what a CAP Pokemon should get in reference to the CAP metagame because the CAP metagame is not OU. Thusly, any attempt to make a "stable" CAP Metagame is fruitless because the next CAP might completely upend it upon release, or it might have little or no effect. Infiltrator Volkraken is almost certainly going to make hell for SubToxic Tomohawk. But we didn't make Volkraken with that idea in mind, it's just the passive result of the fact we built Volkraken's stats, types, and movepool into what we thought would be effective in OU.

Basically, the CAP metagame is always *acted upon* by the process, and cannot be included in it, which means a CAP Meta analysis is at best useful for 4-7 months.

Why PRC threads don't often have "a decision:"

PRC threads are primarily discussions, and sometimes the answer to the discussion is "nothing should change" or "proposed changes are not in line with the CAP mission [e.g. CAP creation for metas other than OU]" In truth our fundamental process is pretty good, and even if you consider the massive shifts that were talked about after the "disaster" CAPs, it didn't really change the process itself as much as it did the leadership and responsibilities of people involved. The only major process change I can think of recently is changes to how Movepool is conducted internally. We still have AM and NAM discussions. Just because we did not "do something" as the result of a thread does not mean our policy process is itself flawed. Arguably if the policy in question is solid enough not to require change, we just fulfill the real purpose of CAP anyway, which is good discussions, not creating Pokemon.

Of the proposals in the OP, I think a timer on threads is the only one I could support. One week discussion followed with a 48 hour window to discuss either a slate for voting or no action afterwards. For the last few cycles each moderator or a PRC member with moderator approval has made OPs on policy topics they think are important. The fourth point isn't really a change unless we're eliminating moderator approval, which is not something I think is wise. Part of the reason for selecting CAP Mods is that they "get" what CAP is about, so they (we) understand why we can't have a PRC thread every cycle about inserting the CAP metagame into CAP project discussions. The conclusion is always the same - you can't build a CAP for OU if you're building a CAP for CAP Meta. Especially since the CAP Meta only gets *more* divergent from OU with each project, not less. The same principle is in operation for revamping old CAPs with Gen 5 / Gen 6 Moves.

Ultimately we want to make good discussions, not Pokemon:

There is no perfect process for creating a Pokemon and we will never discover one, especially not via operation of a committee. Our current process is geared towards this outcome of better competitive discussions, so if we need a direction, my suggestion is we start formulating a policy about a more disturbing recent trend of hype, fear, and bandwagoning that derail discussions. Volkraken had a few choice examples, like SubSplit on a 100 Base HP Mon allowing it to counter blobs without needing Lucario, Swagger being disallowed, Analytic + Specs + Weather Calcs, and a few other things that I think got out of hand. Those diminished the value of discussions, but of course other people will disagree with my subjective analysis on this point or that.

So if we're looking for direction, it should be about enhancing discussions, not creating Pokemon, as it were. Refer to Doug's OP in the CAP Leadership Compendium, specifically under "Fundamental Operating Principles" (Do a CTRL+F) for a little more fleshed out idea of what this means.
 
Last edited:

HeaLnDeaL

Let's Keep Fighting
is an Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I have to leave really soon, so I'll keep my opinions brief...

All in all, I'm in support of a one week timer for PRC threads. For the vast majority of our topics, I think that we'll be able to cover them in this amount of time. Any discussions regarding the CAP metagame might be the exception, however... In general, I agree with Deck Knight that issues within the CAP metagame should not directly impact the CAP Process, as each CAP is designed for OU. However, in between projects it wouldn't hurt to try to have more formalized efforts regarding the meta's optics and such... However, I don't think this is quite yet the thread to go in depth about my CAP metagame opinions, so I'll leave those discussions for later.

So, of the proposals listed by Birkal in this thread, I think the one week timer is the most plausible.
 

Quanyails

On sabbatical!
is a Top Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I disagree with the proposal of a one-week timer, as PRC does not have an impetus to rush to a conclusion, and such a rushed conclusion probably won't satisfy the intent of the discussion. On the other hand, taking our time results in PRC members uncertain about continuing or completing a discussion--the 'slog' Birkal mentions, I believe.

PRC has plenty of discussion, but reaching a conclusion is the difficult part. PRC on forums vs. IRC have their pros and cons for discussion, but concluding requires an extraordinary effort made by a person dedicated to resolving the topic or getting multiple people to be online at once to wrap up in unison. I personally have found myself averse to reading PRC posts from how 'thick' they appear to be. That is a concern of mine that only gets worse as a thread becomes lengthier.

I mentioned on IRC that I think moving PRC discussions to a place like Google Docs or PiratePad may be more inviting for reaching a conclusion. Here are some thoughts on reasoning. Keep in mind that this idea is based mostly off of my interpretation of PRC's stagnation, so if there is reason to believe my reasoning is faulty, I wouldn't mind if people correct it or ignore it.
  • We start at the conclusion proposal instead of having to piece one together from discussion.
  • Proposals and discussion are organized separately. Ideas are added to or edited in the main document, while discussion is kept to the built-in chat. I find that more efficient than filtering proposals and discussions within the same body of text.
  • Color-coded text allows PRC members to see other members' proposals without having to search through another person's post or IRC logs for points that member advocates.
  • The pacing of discussions is rapid, like IRC, but not constrainingly so by requiring PRC members to be all online at once.
  • Points of contention will not stall a conclusion if these points are acknowledged in the document to be voted upon later.
 

paintseagull

pink wingull
is a Top Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
The main issues are how long the topics should last and whether or not the PRC should run concurrently to the CAP process. Basically - we don't want to wait too long between projects. I think a small break is nice, maybe 2 or 3 weeks, so that people can reflect and recharge with new ideas and lessons. But we don't want to lose the momentum and excitement that people may have after a playtest either. If we can keep the PR cycle to a couple weeks, I see no need to run it concurrently, since as others have said, that can cause some issues and some PR topics are entirely inappropriate to be happening at the same time as process.

I think that a default 1-week timer for new topics could be good, because it sets an expectation for timely and to-the-point replies, and discourages people to meander to other side topics. However, we should be flexible and allow deadline extensions if it turns out that there is a large amount of discussion required. These could also have a standard - 24h or 48h extensions for example.

We can also set an overall timer for the whole PRC process - 2.5 weeks would be my suggestion, or it could depend on how many topics we want to discuss. If we have 2 or 3 topics going at a time, it should be do-able.

When we're setting up the topics to be discussed, if there is anything that's appropriate for running concurrently with the process, we can put them on lowest priority so that if we start getting to the 3 week mark, we can decide to start the next CAP and finish up those discussion at the same time.

As for Quany's suggestion, I have to think on it a bit. Real-time chat can be hard to keep up with. I'll think more on this and post again later.
 

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Let me continue to explain what irks me about the Policy Review Community. DetriotLolcat has now spent three days working on a post. Pwnemon was halfbaked on joining in the first place. I go on IRC and semi-jokingly ask if anyone enjoys our "Policy Review Phase". I was greeted with unanimous response. Everyone loves the Policy Review Committee! And I'm left sitting dumbfounded. If all of you enjoy the PRC so much, why don't you post?

We have this absolutely messed up mindset that every post needs to be a DougJustDoug essay that would earn you full marks on most college-entry exams. Yes, it's important to have some decorum and thought when posting, but that should never get in the way of actually posting. If you have thoughts, lay them out. In a thread, mind you (IRC does not count). The only wrong answer here is silence. Because when there is silence, I am left pulling teeth and making the decision on my own. When in reality, the CAP moderation team could be making those decisions on their own AND we wouldn't have to spend months pretending like we're catering to the masses.

If you want to get philosophical, liberty is not won, it is fought for. I am all for having a Policy Review Committee - it's a great way to show off how democratic CAP is and how invested our seasoned users are in the project. But if no one is willing to fuel discussions, provide thoughts, and invent new solutions, we might as well give the responsibility to the CAP moderators and save us all a bunch of time. I'd love for the PRC to prove to me this cycle that it's interested in actually doing its job.


My proposal:

  • This Policy Review cycle has two weeks, starting today. During this time, users can come to the CAP Moderators and propose any topic to run during the time.
  • Discussions are led by the Policy Review Committee, specifically the original poster of each thread. Don't let discussion stagnate; don't wait for "promised" posts.
  • After two weeks, the CAP moderators will get together and resolve any untied threads (which can include delaying its discussion for the next cycle).
  • We start up TL and TLT nominations on June 22nd.
  • We spend that week of nominations and voting reflecting on this PR cycle. Was it too long? Short? Was it efficient? We'll use this reflection to chart the course for our future Policy Review threads.
Thoughts? Thread will close in 48 hours.
 

paintseagull

pink wingull
is a Top Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
"If all of you enjoy the PRC so much, why don't you post?"

Posts often take too long to read and write. Don't do it people. Don't make tldr posts. JUST DON'T.

Make quick posts with any thoughts that jump in your head. Even if you haven't read anything. One idea at a time. It's better than nothing. That's my philosophy anyway.

For opening posts and proposals, try to keep it as simple as possible. One or two ideas or proposals at a time, don't get ahead of yourself. Bullet points and lists are good.

edit: Also, I'm good with the 2 week overall goal as long as we can be flexible if it's needed. I think having 1 week goals for individual topics is a solid idea as well, but perhaps let individual leaders suggest timing goals and encourage them to post deadlines as the discussion moves forward. Basically - let's not give people the impression that it's ok to put off making a giant 1000 word post for 2 weeks.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I think the real question we need to get at here is this: Why is starting a new CAP so shortly after the previous one finished suddenly so important? It hasn't been that way at least during my time in CAP. We've typically had at least 5-6 weeks off, if not more. I'm of the opinion that shortening the PRC cycle alone will only make CAP worse. People aren't "waiting" to write long important posts. They either have busy lives or they actually don't care that much. Adding a deadline without changing any of the structure fixes neither of those issues.

If you actually want to make a meaningful change, improve the ease and efficiency of PRC. The easiest way I can see that happening is by requiring OPs contain actionable proposals. People frequently do not have the time to provide meaningful discussion in this forum (because of tl;dr... it's usually fine on IRC), but they have plenty of time for a vote.

Obviously we can't vote on a final action most of the time because someone will raise a concern, but this is pretty easy to solve. First round, vote up/down the OP on whether or not the concern should be acted upon (but not the specific solution). Anyone who believes it should be acted upon a different way than the OP's proposal is responsible for providing an alternative proposal within 48 or 72 hours, or some similar deadline. If the majority do want to do something, then move straight into voting on the competing proposals. If the majority has voted that there is a problem and no alternative solution was presented, you go with the OP immediately. Put the burden on any individual who disagrees with the solution to make formal voting proposals. Too often I feel people put that off for others to deal with, so our discussions drag on where we all bemoan problems but refuse to come to solutions.

I'm tired of longwinded PRC threads that don't actually come to any sort of conclusion, or if they do, never actually get implemented. Incentivize personal responsibility of all PRC members to ensure we get the CAP process we want.
 

DetroitLolcat

Maize and Blue Badge Set 2014-2017
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
After this thread was posted, a few of us were talking on IRC about what this thread hopes to accomplish and what the motivations for posting it were. Note: Woggers and Woggout are user: Birkal.

[00:50] <Woggers> anyways, enjoy my frustrated ramblings
[00:50] <Woggers> hopefully some good can come out of this thread
[00:50] <Woggers> would much rather be making mons lol
[00:50] *** <Woggers> is now known as <Woggout>
[00:51] <DetroitLolcat> I don't understand what "it rules us rather than us using it as a tool." means. Does he mean that the between-CAP PR cycle dominates our time too much?
[00:52] <Woggout> it means that we've come to the point where we are forced to have a PR cycle
[00:52] <Woggout> where we are forced to stop making Pokemon and start discussing policy
[00:52] <Woggout> we serve it
[00:53] <Woggout> even if no policy needs to be made (subjective), we still need to have a PR cycle
[00:53] <jas61292> I don't know. I personally have little problem with PRC as it is. Could it be more efficient? Probably, but I don't personally see any real issues with it beyond that. Policy is important enough to me that I don't really think we should be looking for ways to circumvent it, as that seems counterproductive.
[00:54] <jas61292> With that said, I have nothing against doing PR at the same time as projects. I just don't personally see it working.
[00:55] <Woggout> I should probably be more specific in the thread
[00:55] <DetroitLolcat> Maybe I'm just not thinking outside the box, but I'm with jas on this. We seem to have three options when it comes to having a time to make policy: do it between CAPs, during CAPs, or both. And only one of those options gives us a time when we focus solely on making Pokemon.
[00:55] <Woggout> it is frustrating to me that much of the policy review is me
[00:55] <Woggout> it is me pulling teeth to get people to post in threads
[00:55] <Woggout> it's me trying to find OPs for threads
[00:56] <Woggout> it's me trying to get verdicts so we can be done and start actually making a pokemon
[00:56] <Woggout> last PR cycle especially was frustrating in that everyone threw out their opinions, and then we were done
[00:56] <Woggout> there was no discussion, imo
[00:56] <Woggout> and that's frustrating when we're trying to enact changes as a group
[00:56] <Woggout> because if that's the case, I should just make all the rules myself
[00:57] <Woggout> and I don't think anyone wants that, me included =P
[00:57] *** Frizy joined #cap
[00:57] <Woggout> does any of that resonate?
[00:57] *** cyzir_visheen quit (Client exited)
[00:58] <Woggout> sorry, that sounds really whiny of me, lol
[00:58] <DetroitLolcat> I get what you're saying, definitely. And although I believe last CAP's PR is more the exception than the rule (having a boatload of PR topics didn't help much either), I feel like that's more a problem with that one specific PRC (myself included) than the way the PRC is set up.
[00:58] <Woggout> let me be clear -- I do not mind leading policy review and enacting changes
[00:59] *** cyzir_visheen joined #cap
[00:59] <Woggout> but if that's how people want it, we should be clear about it
[00:59] <Woggout> yes, what you're saying is exactly what I want to address, DLC
[00:59] <Woggout> the way the PRC is set up is wonky, imo
[01:00] <Woggout> oh, you said the other thing
[01:00] <Woggout> but still, I think it's a problem that needs to be addressed
[01:00] <Woggout> if people want ownership over PRC, they should take it
[01:00] <Woggout> otherwise we should stop pussyfooting around and just say that the moderators should make changes
[01:01] <DetroitLolcat> I think we agree on that part, but we disagree on the root causes of that. I'm not sure what changes to the logistics of the PRC will promote more activity.
[01:02] <jas61292> As far as the structure of PRC, I do think we could definitely be more clear on how it works. That is probably the biggest issue to me at the moment. We have a system, but we don't really say anywhere how things get started, how they get finished, and who decided what. Its more like a discussion with everyone looking to everyone else to do something. I don't really care who is doing what, but I do think we need to solidify it so that it is not a mystery
[01:04] <DetroitLolcat> Activity, especially from non-moderators (or non-Birkals :P), seems to be your biggest area of concern. I'm not sure if that's really reflected in the topic's OP. Codifying how the PRC functions, as jas just pointed out, seems like a good start.
[01:04] <Woggout> great, I think that would help too
[01:04] <Woggout> because our current codification for how PR works is a voting system
[01:04] <Woggout> which we have largely done away with
[01:07] <jas61292> Thread conclusion is definitely the most ambiguous part. We've done polls and we've done community concensus (and possibly other things), but which is where is completely random to any individual, and even who is deciding on such a consensus is not consistant. Oftentimes it is Birkal or Doug, but I was involved in one once (before I was a mod), and I believe someone else was too (srk I want to say, but I'm not 100% sure from memory)
[01:08] <DetroitLolcat> I think the fourth bullet point in the OP is a very good idea. We experimented with this in the previous PR cycle, and I'm not sure what people though of it. Whether it was well-executed or not between CAPs 17 and 18, it's a big step forward in giving the PRC back to the people who really want to manage CAP policy.
[01:09] <Woggout> I think a combination of that and a timer on threads would be sensible, Dcat
[01:09] <Woggout> I think one thing that needs to shift is our state of mind -- we currently think in terms of "we cannot start a new Pokemon until we finish"
[01:10] <Woggout> when it should be -- "if we don't finish this thread on time, I'll have to wait another full CAP to address it again"
[01:10] <DetroitLolcat> Assuming we still want the PRC to function as-is rather than giving all policy authority to the moderators. While I don't think giving full policy control to the mods would be bad for CAP policy, I think that should be a last-resort option.
[01:11] <jas61292> One issue with that 4th bullet is making sure individuals understand what they are doing. Often times it seems PRC topics come up because an individual has something they think should be discussed. If they want to make the thread for that, then great. But if not, then it is more difficult. I remember from last PRC that we had the thread where people signed up for topics, and there was definitely one that a number of people didn't want to take, cause frankly, they di
[01:11] <jas61292> dn't understand what was meant by it.
[01:12] <Yilx> holy crap this wall of words
[01:12] <jas61292> I do that sometimes
[01:12] <Woggout> didn't know more than 20 characters could be written on IRC, huh <Yilx> ?
[01:12] <Woggout> ;]
[01:12] <Yilx> well this only happened like.
[01:13] <Yilx> once ever before
[01:13] <Yilx> and that was r_d vs djd
[01:13] <Yilx> on irc
[01:13] <DetroitLolcat> I believe if someone wants to raise an issue before the PRC, they should be the ones responsible for the OP. We saw ginga take charge with Checks and Counters last CAP, and it was probably the best-run thread in the forum last cycle. If you feel passionate enough about a subject to practically demand the PRC look at it, then you're probably more qualified
[01:13] <DetroitLolcat> than anyone to manage the OP.
[01:13] <jas61292> I always have an absurd words / line ratio on chanstat
[01:15] <Woggout> it could wind up that if users have an issue, they need to post a PR thread
[01:15] <Woggout> and the PR thread needs to have a variety of qualifications to meet standards
[01:16] <DetroitLolcat> Isn't that sort of what's going on right now?
[01:16] <Woggout> e.g. an explanation of the problem / history of the problem / list of potential solutions / timeline
[01:16] <Woggout> "sort of"
[01:16] <Woggout> again, nothing is codified
[01:18] <DetroitLolcat> If that isn't what's going on right now, it's what should be IMO.


The part of the log from 00:55 to 01:00 is the most important. People are considering giving all Policy Review control to the moderators because the PRC isn't working efficiently enough and the discussions are waning in quality. For example, the Mega Evolution PR thread from the previous cycle dominated the process while it was active (for good reason), but many people just stated their opinion and did not challenge what others had to say. A week later, the thread closed and we had a conclusion, but most people didn't have their opinions challenged or changed. Essentially, it was time for a verdict by the time everyone finished their opening statements. And while we came to a good conclusion in that thread, the way we got to that conclusion wasn't up to par. Even with PR, it's about the process as much as it is the product. If we had given the moderators control over that policy, we likely would have come to the same conclusion more efficiently.

The fourth of the OP's bullet points is the only one that I would like to see implemented. The relevant part of the log is from 01:08 to 01:18. If we want the members of the PRC to be more active, giving them control over OPs is a good start. In the PR cycle between CAPs 17 and 18, users volunteered to write the OPs of threads that they felt strongly about. This was best exemplified when ginganinja repeatedly asked for a review of the Checks and Counters process, wrote the OP, and contributed significantly to the thread's resolution. Although the thread lasted two weeks (longer than it seems we would like a PR thread to last), it was a high-quality discussion. Future PR threads should work like that; users who want an issue brought up in the following PR cycle should write the OP, get it checked by moderators, and have some degree of autonomy in managing the thread. In this case, if we had given the moderators full control over that issue we would have cheated ourselves out of a great discussion and possibly a great conclusion. Will giving users more autonomy over OPs and threads fix the PR forum overnight? No, but it's a good start.

I do not believe PR threads should be put on a timer because users will make hasty or unfinished posts rather than work more efficiently. I doubt we would have been able to update the Ability Banlist or the VGM lists in a week. In my opinion, the only reason we got Mega Evolution done in a week was because it was the most anticipated discussion of the generational shift. I don't believe I would be able to keep up with the threads and I don't think busier PRC members would be able to either. If "last PR cycle especially was frustrating in that everyone threw out their opinions, and then we were done" (quote from Birkal at 00:56 in the log), then one-week deadlines will exacerbate that problem because people will only have time to throw out their opinions before the deadline hits. I believe placing timers on threads will shift the PRC's focus from "making policy" to "meeting deadlines" and lower discussion quality.

Separating "CAP time" from "PRC time" is absolutely necessary in my opinion. Deck Knight said it better than I can:
Deck Knight said:
PRC time is supposed to reflect back on the most recent project and address any issues or concerns arising from the process on things that either have or have not changed.
We have three choices when deciding when to do PR. We can either do it during the CAP, between CAPs, or both. Only one of those options gives us any time exclusive to making Pokemon.

Lastly, on giving PRC control to the moderators. It depends on what we want from the PRC. If decisions are more important than discussions, then CAP should become like most other forums on Smogon and let the moderators decide policy from start to finish. I personally love the PRC as it is because I enjoy discussing and debating with you all and because being able to affect policy despite not being a moderator is enjoyable.

ahh sorry I've been writing this post for 3 days I guess I'm part of the problem not the solution
 

paintseagull

pink wingull
is a Top Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
I suppose I'm a little confused that some people (Birkal, srk) are as frustrated as they are with the PRC. In my mind it has worked pretty well. We've made positive changes in topics such as Polling Options (woops that took 2 months somehow), Flavour Polls - Campaigning, Flavor Steps, and Topic Leadership. True, some topics have spun their wheels and come to no real useful conclusion (actually I can't really think of any). I guess it just happens - sometimes we lose interest, or have other things to think about, and discussion falters. I think that this idea of more committee-member driven topics that DLC has just talked about more in detail can help. It's up to the discussion leader to keep discussion moving, set deadline and come up with consensus and decide to put things to a vote when necessary. We can encourage voting if discussion is just not going anywhere. I feel like we have the tools already for successful PRC cycles, we just need a bit of motivation and positive attitude to keep things moving quickly. I think if we set ourselves a quick turnaround goal, it'll help a lot.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
So, honestly.... I gotta say I pretty much universally disagree with all of the things Birkal is suggesting. While I fully admit that PRC is not always operating at its most efficient, I think the reasons for this are not going to be circumvented and need to be approached more directly. I do have a lot to say on all this, but srk and DLC summed up a lot of what I have to say on this already, so I'll try to keep this shorter than it might otherwise have been.

First off, why is starting up projects so soon so important? We don't make Pokemon just to make Pokemon. We do it for the process and the learning that it leads to. Trying to do more just because its fun without trying to analyze things does not serve to help that. Is it boring to wait so long? Sure, sometimes it is. But that is much better solved by doing other things in the main CAP forum in the mean time, and not by rushing incredibly important discussions just to "get them done." And as for the long time it sometimes takes people to post, that is just a function of people's lives and styles.

Birkal said above, "If all of you enjoy the PRC so much, why don't you post?" The answer to that has many different facets. Yes, a lot of that may have to do with time management and such, but not for me personally. I love PRC because it is all about innovating and refining the process, and the posts that are made are some of the best and most well thought out posts on the entire site. You say post faster and just get stuff out, but I disagree with that mentality. Post what you think needs to be posted. Reducing post quality just to get stuff out faster is a step towards eliminating some of the things that make PRC as great as it is. I am not going to just post for postings sake. Now, of course, unlike a lot of people who may tend to make long posts, I do not think and agonize and edit it for days or even hours. If I spent more than 30 minutes on a post, then it took a long time. I get all my thoughts out quickly, and despite the appearance, I am not waiting to post things to get everything together. In fact, contrary to what I said above, I would actually encourage people to post more often rather than saving up thoughts. But that is still a different thing. All thoughts should be thought through and you should make sure you are saying what you want to say, and not just saying it to say something. However, if you have 3 things to say, and only have thought 1 of them through, post on it and post later for the others. Yes, we can make things more efficient like this. And to be quite honest, what I am saying is not really that different than what Birkal said. Only the mentality is different. When making policy decisions, it is far more important to do things right than do things fast, but at the same time, things still need to be said for any decision to be made.

On a different note, as Deck and DLC said, I firmly believe that PRC cannot be done concurrently with a CAP, at least most of the time. I have no problem with certain threads continuing on while a CAP starts, but the fact is that the thing that spurs PR threads to begin with is reflection on the CAP project. If we are always doing it, we don't really have the time to reflect, and, more importantly, implement any changes we want due to this reflection. Its one thing to continue working on an ability banlist while we do concept submissions, but its completely different to wait until that point to decided if we even want such a banlist to begin with. If we do not know what our process is WHILE we are executing it, the process with not work out. A time of reflection needs to remain separate.

My last opposition statement here is that I am absolutely opposed to handing over control of this stuff to the moderation team. This is a community project, and the community that cares should decide on absolutely everything of importance pertaining to the project. To say "the CAP moderation team could be making those decisions on their own" is a flat out lie, in my opinion. I mean, yeah, we could make those decisions. So could anyone. The ability to make a decision is irrelevant. But when viewed as if to say there would be no difference, that is a straight up falsehood. We are a tiny, tiny fraction of the community, and our viewpoint is incredibly influenced by our abilities as moderators. What we think and what the community thinks will be different on many accounts, and the only right answer to most PR problems is what the community thinks. Handing this stuff over to us is anti-... well honestly, its anti-CAP in my mind, and I oppose it completely.

Now to end this on a more constructive note, I think the one big problem that is most easily dealt with is how we often fail to arrive at conculsions. We have threads, people throw out thoughts, and then things stop. I don't think this is a problem with the way people are posting as seems to have been implied by some. Rather it is a problem with overall thread structure. We start by saying "Thing X. Discuss." And then we do discuss. Rather than that, we should be focusing more on proposals. If we discuss a stage, we get opinions on it, but opinions on stages are not an action to take. Opinions on a proposal are. Now, that is not to say that the kinds of threads we currently have are bad. No, in fact, I think they are excellent. However, we cannot expect them to solve problems. There is not always a problem to be solved. Discussing the TLT for instance did need any real proposals, since it was just there to gather opinions. However, when we have a topic where it is clear people do want to do something (anything at all), then rather than waiting for discussions to end and trying to draw a conclusion that is not there, we should close them and open a new one, starting with a proposal. When threads are goal based, we get views on the goal. When threads are open ended, we get a series of personal opinions on various views that may or may not help us. We don't need to put things to votes. In fact, I prefer that we don't. We don't represent the majority of the CAP community, so a majority here means nothing. What matters are well thought out arguments, and driving a consensus on specific proposals are the way to do it. So, while I don't think we should try and make everything into a "do this or don't" thread, I think any time we are considering a real policy change, we need to have the final decisions come from a thread discussing a proposal, and not just a general concept.

Overall, I don't really think there are many problems with the system we have. Things could be more efficient, sure. And we definitely need to refine who and how final decisions are made, but the overall structure is what I believe wholeheartedly is best for the CAP project itself, and I don't want to see any time limits or major changes just for the sake of getting things done faster. We want better, not faster.
 

bugmaniacbob

Was fun while it lasted
is an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
If all of you enjoy the PRC so much, why don't you post?
IRL commitments, sleeping, eating, working, repeatedly having to rewrite parts of posts when someone else posts before you can, trying to write up HistDoc OPs in spare time, yada yada

PRC is always a good time because it does allow us, as several others have noted, to post in an area where other people are interested in engaging on the same issues and for the most part everybody's thoughts are worth reading and worth thinking about. I don't think that everybody complains about the time taken to sort out the outstanding issues in between CAPs - in many ways it's therapeutic and there's always the positive reinforcement of a feeling of progress being made. In this case I did a fair bit of thinking before I thought I had enough stuff to say on the subject to make a post worthwhile. Though, with that said

We have this absolutely messed up mindset that every post needs to be a DougJustDoug essay that would earn you full marks on most college-entry exams.
Or, sometimes a lot of us have a lot to say, and very often we try to deal with the entirety of the thing within the confines of a single post because lord knows if we're going to put some vast quantity of effort in connecting with a subject we want to make it something that merits reading... and also because I am personally far too lazy to write more than one post at a time. That said, the way this thread was organised wasn't particularly helpful in this regard. We are invited to discuss a vast and complex issue, never mind that many of us are perhaps arriving at the discussion with different ideas of how we want the discussion to go and what we are planning to discuss first, and indeed we're also given a few "here are some ideas to think about", all of which necessitate, well, thinking about. Oh, and yes, I agree with jas on the point that making an effort in PRC is something to be cherished and ideas shouldn't be just thrown around willy-nilly. I'd take that a step further, actually, and say that it's something of a source of pride as well as a sub-culture. We do put time and effort into expressing our thoughts. This is a good thing. The posts that we have now are more than worth reading. I sometimes go back over previous PRC topics just to read through the responses.

Because when there is silence, I am left pulling teeth and making the decision on my own. When in reality, the CAP moderation team could be making those decisions on their own AND we wouldn't have to spend months pretending like we're catering to the masses.
If there is silence, it's either because nobody is clear on what exactly they're supposed to be saying or they just don't care. This, I think, would be a moment to tie in the two PRC topics I took during the last cycle, and specifically the suggestion of a one-week limit on all threads. Neither of my threads were done in a week. For the VGM discussion, there was a lot to talk about and voting took up about half a week all on its own. For the HistDoc, the theme seemed to be something along the lines of my making a post, waiting a week, and then making another post under the assumption that everything was fine. There were probably a number of reasons for this; most people I wager weren't particularly bothered, or were in support of the idea and didn't care about the specifics, and the only time the thread picked up was when people decided that I needed to be told how long my example was. I could have done this a lot better - possibly highlighted contentious areas so that people had a better idea of what I wanted discussed at a particular point in time.

I understand the frustration over things lying stale. It annoyed me last PRC cycle when HistDoc was abandoned for long periods of time. It annoyed me pre-Aurumoth when there appeared to be only a few people actively dealing with PRC issues, so much so that I eventually pushed for CAP4 to start immediately given that nothing else was being achieved. Heck, it annoys me now that certain things aren't being done, and all the more so because I don't have any sort of ability to help deal with them. Yes, those people who are active and are posting can be annoyed by the people who aren't doing so, but not all of the people who aren't posting are doing it out of laziness or spite. I've been surprised in the past when people who have contributed nothing to discussions before a particular post can come in with a well-thought-out and pertinent set of points.

But if no one is willing to fuel discussions, provide thoughts, and invent new solutions, we might as well give the responsibility to the CAP moderators and save us all a bunch of time. I'd love for the PRC to prove to me this cycle that it's interested in actually doing its job.
I'm not sure why, if the PRC cannot provide thoughts and invent new solutions, then a specific subset of the PRC - the moderation team - should fare much better, unless you are seriously considering just making decisions with cursory input. The moderation team could quite easily make all the necessary decisions - heck, I'm sure that Doug himself could quite happily make every decision if need be - but the reason we have a PRC is that we are all just as invested in this project as you are, and we all want what's best for the project, and for the most part we all have the same understanding of the process that allows us to suggest these solutions. One of the more recent "successful" resolutions to a PRC thread was that of PRC applications; we identified a problem, jas gave a good solution (finite rolling applications), I independently wrote up the solution and added the bit about letting people know whether or not they were chosen, and we all voted on it and passed the measure. The solution was multi-layered, didn't come around immediately, and involved more than one person. Generally speaking, the PRC should give better results than a smaller sample size and perhaps more importantly reinforces the idea of a debate among equals. So really, I disagree that the problem exists and that the solution is an improvement regardless.

As for the given proposals:

This Policy Review cycle has two weeks, starting today. During this time, users can come to the CAP Moderators and propose any topic to run during the time.
I disagree. Placing an arbitrary time limit irrespective of the needs of specific topics or without accounting for the possibility that one topic will lead to discussion of another benefits no-one. Instead, I would propose the following:

Discussions that have not seen any activity over a given period of time (say 96 hours; this can naturally be modified) since the last post are either closed or postponed until the next CAP cycle at moderator discretion.

This measure would enable threads that have run their course to be stopped without allowing them to drag on without anything being achieved. In this case, it is the OP's prerogative to ensure that if they want the thread to remain active or reach a conclusion, they should make certain that it does not, either by putting up a vote (should solutions have been proposed, or the thread require some measure of resolution) or by directing attention to a new topic of discussion, possibly an extension of what has already been discussed. This is in the vein of what I was attempting to do with HistDocs, where long periods would go by without any sort of activity, and I'd try to fish for opinions by introducing new discussion topics or simply assuming community consensus.

I'd also like to question when exactly we stopped being able to propose topics to run during the PRC cycle. Surely that goes with the privilege of being a PRC member in the first place? Or, indeed, being a member of the CAP community?

Discussions are led by the Policy Review Committee, specifically the original poster of each thread. Don't let discussion stagnate; don't wait for "promised" posts.
I was under the impression that this was already the case. Unless you mean the extension thereof, which would transfer the ability to call votes, lead discussion topics, and declare resolution to the thread. I would be in favour of all of the above, but please do specify what you were specifically proposing under the umbrella of "discussion led by the PRC".

After two weeks, the CAP moderators will get together and resolve any untied threads (which can include delaying its discussion for the next cycle).

[...]

We start up TL and TLT nominations on June 22nd.
Again, I disagree with arbitrary deadlines and particularly with imposing community consensus where there is a real possibility that none exists. See above.

We spend that week of nominations and voting reflecting on this PR cycle. Was it too long? Short? Was it efficient? We'll use this reflection to chart the course for our future Policy Review threads.
I'm pretty sure we've had this before, and it never really seems to work. We don't really take issue with how the PRC operates; we're just here to discuss and debate. In any case, there's very rarely anything concrete to say and if there is, well, generally speaking this tends to be brought up in the PRC cycle itself. Otherwise it just strikes me as pointless moaning about things we don't have solutions for, or else general apathy.

Further to the above proposals:

All PRC threads should begin with either a Proposal, a Problem that requires a Proposal, or a Topic of Discussion.

Further to what srk and jas among others were saying, a Proposal concerning a particular topic is something that requires greater emphasis in many PRC threads, though I certainly don't think it should be all-encompassing. There are threads from the previous PRC cycle iirc that didn't even propose a problem or a particularly narrow area of discussion, but simply highlighted something and said "get on with it". We have had, it is true, some good discussions stemming from threads such as these, but they very rarely come to any sort of conclusion when we aren't specifically making a proposal at the end of it that sums up the discussion... which typically necessitates that there was some sort of proposal that needed making to begin with. Now, the above doesn't really allow or disallow anything that isn't already allowed or disallowed per se, but it does put some more emphasis on pointing people in a direction and not allowing the bowl of views to spill over, hem hem. Many of the discussions that currently take place tend to be unfocused, and simply necessitating some minimal degree of focus within a given area to begin with could have some positive benefits. Maybe.

We should stop expecting Discussion threads to actually end in some sort of conclusion

Discussion threads are a specific type of animal where we don't really know what the start or end points are going to be, but we have a topic that needs reviewing, so we get right onto it. As I said above, without some degree of focus on one area at a time we are far less likely to extract anything meaningful from the process. As Deck already helpfully pointed out, sometimes changes don't need to take place, and large parts of our process are as good as they are going to get without some revolutionary new idea. Sometimes discussions for discussions' sake are nice, or even to gauge community opinion on a topic, which is what my earlier proposal about simply ending threads when interest wanes is designed to address.

Give the OP full control over the discussion; specifically, let them choose when to call a vote and when to close the thread

Birkal says he's annoyed that he's often the only one running around trying to get threads finished up or get other people to post in them. For my own part I often feel quite bad that Birkal is pretty much the only person I can go to when I want something done, whether it is because he's the only one around or because I'm still really quite unclear on who exactly has permission to give permission for what, given that I'm sure Birkal has plenty on his plate as it is. With that being said, this proposal isn't quite going to alleviate that stress, but it might help. I have in cases been somewhat annoyed, it's true, that so much stuff I want to do requires permission; in my ideal scenario, any PRC member could post any topic they wanted to and have full control over it, without the need to go through an intermediate. To elaborate, in the initial stages of the VGM discussion and parts of the HistDocs proposal I tried going on IRC when discussion stagnated and poking people for one- or two-line opinions which I could post in the thread. People tend to be invested in their threads; giving them the powers necessary to push discussions forward, or making it clear that they can do so, may go some way towards removing any waiting for Modot to come in and sort the discussion out. At the moment, yes, it's pretty unclear what can and can't be done without stepping the boundary into moderator territory; if nothing else comes of this proposal, a distinct clarification of what moderator, head moderator, and the like powers actually are, because I'm not wholly certain any more, and I'm not wholly convinced that the whole moderation team does either (just as an outsider perspective; if this is untrue then feel free to ignore).

Important topics should have scheduled IRC debates

IRC is a useful tool for being able to engage with the arguments of others in real-time; more importantly, they allow for proponents of contrasting positions to engage in debate that is more amenable to the clashing of different opinions, as opposed to forum discussions or, indeed, actual debates, where different sides will present arguments but it can be hard to keep track of all the information that is being put forward. It has often been the case that good ideas have come out of IRC debates; it might well be the case that by scheduling times for people to be present that the maximum gain can be reaped from a productive means of communication. This might also be possible through other media, though I'm not entirely sure of any other specific ones at present.

----

PRC should have a hand, or at the very least an official policy, on the constructive criticism and contribution of material to be added to the site.

This topic is a massive segue away from what we were just discussing a moment ago, and I was intending to bring it up later (actually not true; I was intending to bring it up first when this thread was posted, then decided to withhold until the current topics were dealt with); however, since Birkal suggested that the thread would close in 48 hours, it seems there won't be time. So forgive me for this giant diversion, and indeed for contributing to the problems I was so vehemently vilifying only a few paragraphs above; I'll make it brief, such that it can be expanded upon later if this thread is indeed kept open. In the past, there wasn't really a process for updating the site, or at least not one that I was privy to; I'm certain there was something, but to an outside observer, it seemed that workshops were posted for updating site material or adding new material, given the once-over, written, then uploaded. Currently, written contributions to the site appear to be the domain of the "analysis coordinator", currently Birkal. I still have a large number of pages of content from before my sabbatical that I'd like to see finished and uploaded. There are many other pages that have fallen out of date since that time. Further to that, I count the writing of analyses for just-finished CAPs and the like as part of the PRC's work since they tend to take place simultaneously, though they do not take place in this subforum.

Hence this topic of discussion. Article Workshops are necessary to update certain of the guides currently on-site and others that need writing, such as the Stat Ratings guide, a possible guide to the CAP metagame or threat list/viability ranking, and a number of Event pages. I wanted to get these done or at least started during this PRC cycle. In addition, I wanted to get HistDocs off the ground. The trouble here is that there isn't really a solid process for going through this, and no real way for people to propose changes to the site who aren't comfortable contacting the mods, or really Birkal, in person, or who simply don't know it can be done (is it actually written anywhere on-site that the analysis coordinator is a thing, and who it is?), and no real way for people who don't have scms access or experience to make changes (moderator consent isn't really the issue here, it's more that there are only a few people who seem to have the authority to actually implement changes to the site without permission). I'd like to see an overhaul of this in some respect, and also for the first workshops, for the most pressing updates, to be posted once this has been decided.

Since proposals are encouraged, I'd tentatively suggest a form of Reservations/Proposals index wherein people could offer to write up articles or else propose an article that needed updating such that the task could be assigned to a willing writer. Furthermore, it should be decided whether this index should be situated in the forum proper or the PRC, depending on who we are comfortable allowing to write on-site articles. This would in theory deal with the moderator consent issue, as it would only need to go through the analysis coordinator, who would also be the OP of this thread, so not difficult to find in the slightest. Also, workshop threads should ideally follow C&C's model of skeleton -> critique -> write-up -> grammar check. As far as HistDocs fits into the equation, I imagine that each individual page would require its own workshop, but by the same token, this would cause a great deal of crowding in whichever forum it was placed in, given the number needed, so possibly more opinions on that front are necessary.

---

I think that's everything... I'll edit if there's something I forgot to address in others' posts or if there's something I wanted to say but didn't for whatever reason
 
Official I Think Telling People the Tone of Your Post Is Redundant Post:

Post length and time spent making a post are two different things. Going back to revise your post, which usually involves making it shorter, expends more time. I feel that telling people to post more frequently is potentially in conflict with telling people to post shorter. I do editing for family members from time to time, and often their work is horrendously long and goes way over page limits. Sometimes people just have a lot to say, at which point it takes considerable effort to take all those ideas they just vomited into their writing software and make it more chewable. I guess if you have something brief to say, then say it, but for something longer, I'd rather people take a longer time than post something that's potentially really long and unorganized.

As for the main topic, I don't think that we need to change the universal protocol of PRC in this way. Threads range from policy discussions to policy refinement (e.g. the VGM list), and so each thread is going to have its own goals and such. Plus, a considerable amount of stuff did get done last time, albeit most of it was urgent and had to come to a decisive conclusion, anyway. Maybe it's like paintseagull said: people participate more when there's a sense of urgency.
 

paintseagull

pink wingull
is a Top Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Okay, what I said before about post length and making quick posts was an oversimplification. I of course don't mean to just thoughtlessly post garbage, or to not think about what's being discussed. I mean: Don't feel you have to compete for post length. Don't feel you have to get every thought you have out in your first post. Don't feel like you can't simply say "I'm interested in this, but I'm unsure what to think, so I'd like to hear opinions of others" or "I'm working on a more thought-out post, but for now I'll say that I basically agree (or disagree)". It is frustrating when we can't get a basic answer from people because they refuse to post without writing an essay about their thoughts. This is a *discussion*, not a place where each person writes an essay about their personal thoughts. We are supposed to be interacting.

The lengths of jas' post (1306 words) and bmb's post (3151 words) are daunting. I keep forgetting this because I naturally write too concisely, but for most writers, writing quickly means writing verbosely. For those people, you actually need to put *more* time in, not less. In my opinion, it is unfair to ask people to not only put thought and consideration into a proposal and then write down their own thoughts, but also to read through unedited stream-of-conciousness writing. I hate to be harsh, but if you write 1500+ words and don't edit it for conciseness and think people have a duty to read it, it's selfish. If you don't want to spend extra time editing, use the power of bullet points. Have a friend edit your work. I don't care what you have to do. People find it daunting to read dense text like that. If it's necessary because you have that much to say, fine. But if it's rambly, repetitive and full of casual or personal language, please please edit it. Say only what you need to convey your point and your point will be much better received.
 

DetroitLolcat

Maize and Blue Badge Set 2014-2017
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I think psg's hit the nail nearly on the head here. If we want better discussions, then people have to post whatever they have already. Taking three days to write one post about three ideas is inferior to writing three posts with one idea each on three consecutive days. I don't believe post length is the problem specifically, it's people taking too long to post that causes the PRC to become inefficient. We've spent a lot of time talking on IRC about whether or not the PR forum should have a more "chat-like atmosphere", and I believe it should. On IRC, people post whatever thoughts they have in mind and people can comment on them in a matter of minutes or even seconds. While the PR forum should clearly be more formal than IRC (the forum is the publicized record of how we arrive at CAP policy, while IRC is more of a workshop for having your ideas quickly evaluated), we can't be too formal with our posts or else they'll just never get done.

I didn't find jas' post daunting by any means. Even bmb's post, long as it was, held my interest until the last few paragraphs. The problem with those posts (and mine as well) is that they didn't arrive for three to four days. We can't debate issues in a reasonable timeframe if we're making two posts per week. I believe someone on IRC stated that it's hard to debate because "making two posts is difficult", but that's only because a lot of us equate "post" with "complete explanation of views on every topic in the thread". Looking at my post, I probably should have posted the point about giving users control over the OPs on Saturday and saved the point about opposing deadlines until Sunday. Look at paintseagull's posts in this thread: she's written over 1000 words so far, but in four quick, concise posts. Furthermore, her posts largely constitute responses to the posts made so far, which is what we need more of. There is a place for long, thought-out posts, but only if you can make them in a reasonable timeframe. Saying "I'll finish this big post tomorrow" is inferior to saying "I'll post what I've got, and post the rest tomorrow separately".

There are a couple more points I'd like to make about Birkal's and bmb's posts, but I'll save them for later because I'm at work (see what I did there?).
 

bugmaniacbob

Was fun while it lasted
is an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Just so it's clear, when I say "I was pushed for time", what I meant (at least for the last post) was that 1 hour on Sunday and 2 on Monday were necessary in order to write up that post. I don't want people to get the impression that I'm somehow spewing out some half-arsed stream of consciousness text when I was, in fact, making an effort. I'm sure that wasn't what psg meant but it's what I thought she meant at first and it hurt a bit.

2nd - contrary to what you may believe, I didn't spend 3hrs+ writing a post on an internet forum purely for the schadenfreude at the thought of people suffering in having to read it. No, as a matter of fact I wrote it to express an opinion. Several opinions, in fact. I'm also not certain why it's inherently more selfish to take one's own time to write up a post expressing said opinion in a verbose fashion and not selfish to refuse to read any given post on the grounds that you don't want to. EDIT: Also fwiw I actually thought my post was shorter than jas's until after I had posted it.

If taking a paragraph or two to examine a particular quote or support a particular proposal is too much, then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. If you want to drive down the size of posts, then stop expecting discussion to proceed in a neat orderly fashion. Especially for open-ended threads like this one. Birkal gave four entirely different proposals in the OP alone. Literally everybody has then gone off on their own individual tangent (well maybe not everybody but near enough) stemming from either one of these proposals or what they want to see resulting from this thread. And then when we try to address all of them, we can't, because damn it we have our own proposals and thoughts and don't want to see them get swamped by everyone else's.

This is especially problematic when people post while we're writing up our own posts and oh dear now we have something else to read and consider because somebody else has posted and suddenly our own posts are set back and we want to make edits but can't because it's 1am and we're sick of writing and whoops I went into stream of consciousness didn't I

It should be, as I said earlier, the OP's responsibility in all cases to keep discussion on the straight and narrow. Or at least a straight and narrow. Propose a single item of discussion, or similar, and we can move on from that point. Also, to make sure that people aren't afraid that their own points will be drowned out if the topic of conversation moves away from what they wanted to discuss beforehand.

tl;dr

- My post is long because it addresses a lot of stuff and proposes a large amount as well.
- Each individual topic I wrote about doesn't actually have that much space allocated to it.
- It takes a long time to post because other people post and we're actually trying to consider the thoughts of others. Also IRL constraints.
 
Last edited:

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Content trumps length. No, we don't need to be the tl;dr forum, but if you aren't willing to put in the time to read - or if you are posting don't care to categorize your thoughts with formatting (like in my previous missive), then there's not much that is going to get resolved.

As for what it means to "get resolved," I reiterate: "No change" can be a proper resolution.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Concurring with Deck Knight. A lot of people act like long posts are a huge issue, but refusal to read such things is just as big a problem. Posts can certainly be too long and have too much fluff, but its about the content, and if you don't read things because of the length, you can't rightly judge whether it was too long for what it said to begin with.

Regardless, all this post length stuff is really missing the main points of this thread, in my opinion. It will be very hard to change people's posting habits. No "policy" can really do that. Rather, we should be looking to see how, working with what we have, we can optimize the PRC as best we can, if, as Deck implied, we need any optimization at all.
 

paintseagull

pink wingull
is a Top Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
I'm willing to just drop the post length stuff, it does probably miss the point.

bmb said:
It should be, as I said earlier, the OP's responsibility in all cases to keep discussion on the straight and narrow. Or at least a straight and narrow. Propose a single item of discussion, or similar, and we can move on from that point. Also, to make sure that people aren't afraid that their own points will be drowned out if the topic of conversation moves away from what they wanted to discuss beforehand.
I like this. I also agree that we don't really need new policy for how PRC works. Let's just be more mindful of keeping things moving and keeping things efficient. Beginning with a proposal is a good way to make this work, but may not always be appropriate.
 

DougJustDoug

Knows the great enthusiasms
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Artistis a Programmeris a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Moderator
I think the CAP project overall should consider timeboxing almost all of our threads.
Not just policy review threads, but all the CAP threads. I have opposed it in the past, but I really think we are losing more than we gain by having completely open timeframes for every discussion and decision.

I definitely do not want to rush anything in the project. And my guess is that any reasonable timebox we put on a thread that truly accommodates the global, distributed, volunteer aspects of our contributor base, will likely be considered "too long" by many avid participants of the community. But I definitely see a lot of unnecessary drag in CAP, and it has been multiplied over the years as our process has matured and we have added more steps and procedures.

This thread is not to discuss the CAP construction process itself, and I am not trying to divert us onto that subject specifically. I mention it only because I think the overall lagginess of Create-A-Pokemon in general is somewhat to blame when it comes to frustration with the length of the PR cycle between CAPs. If we manage all of our time in CAP just a LITTLE better, I don't think we'd need to change PR time management in any dramatic way, and yet we would achieve a perceived dramatic end result.

But to keep on the subject of Policy Review itself -- yes, I think timeboxing would be a good thing.

I strongly support the current system that Policy Review is compartmentalized as a separate and distinct cycle from the construction of CAP pokemon.
If we ran the two concurrently, I think PR would get polluted with glorified "Bitch about the current CAP" threads, and I don't think those threads would be productive. When a CAP is ongoing, I think we lack the proper perspective to make good policy. Everything is too fresh, we haven't seen the final result, and the people that have the most energy to push for policy change are those that are pissed off over a recent event or decision. Yes, that is still somewhat true for CAP policy threads after a CAP is complete, but I think the "I'm pissed off" effect is minimized by the waiting time of the current cycles. People cool down, ideas have time to gel, and we are able to reflect on the past CAP holistically. These are good things -- essential things -- for high-quality policy review, IMO.

I do think we could make our PR threads MORE concurrent with CAP than it is today, and cut out a lot of the drag time, while still allowing for a not-rushed PR cycle.

If we timebox the PR cycle to 4 weeks maximum, for example -- we could explicitly overlap the end of the PR cycle with the TL/TLT application and selection process, which typically takes a week or more. So the net "time off" for the average community member between CAP projects would probably be 2.5 weeks or so. That's not too long at all, IMO. And a solid month of Policy Review discussions should be plenty of time without rushing, I think. I know past PR cycle have run over that, for sure. But with just a little bit of timeboxing discipline, I think we can do it easily without anyone feeling overly hurried to post or decide anything.

I don't think we should change anything specifically regarding the conclusion of PR threads.
As others have mentioned, I think the biggest value of CAP Policy Review is that we evaluate and challenge our policies on a regular basis, and the access to participate in policy review is open to everyone. As Deck Knight pointed out -- these are fundamental principles of the CAP project, as I wrote about in the CAP Leadership Compendium. We should not force every discussion to be a "yes or no" decision on a discreet proposal every time. Sometimes we just need to discuss policies, and see if a proposal emerges. I also don't want to force every conclusion to be decided via a PRC poll, for reasons jas mentioned. Yes, it can be done if it makes sense, but it should not be required.

As for WHO is responsible for posting the conclusion of a PR thread -- that is the responsibility of the Head of the CAP Project (me) or whoever has been designated to conclude the thread. In most cases, the CAP Head Moderator (Birkal) is designated to conclude PR threads, and occasionally the Head Moderator will designate someone else to make the conclusion. I think this format works fine for assessing the intelligent PRC consensus, and allows necessary flexibility to handle the wide variety of policy discussions we encourage.

If we timebox PR threads, I think it will lessen the urge to make more formal rules for making discreet conclusions, and will probably reduce other general dissatisfaction with PR. I may be wrong, but I think long time frames are magnifying other issues.

Post length means nothing. Good, organized writing means everything.
I've had people bitch at me about tl;dr posts of mine that were only two regular paragraphs -- and, in retrospect, they were right that I was too long-winded. On the other hand, one of the longest posts I have ever written (over 11,500 words) was nominated for Smogon Post Of The Year.
 

HeaLnDeaL

Let's Keep Fighting
is an Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I think that perhaps having a time limit of PRC threads would be a good idea, but I very much support paintseagull's earlier suggestion about allowing 24 or 48 hour extensions if the time is truly needed. Overall, I see the one week per thread rule at a tool that can help keep momentum going on in the PRC, while occasionally allowing short extensions for time can help out and serve as a check to the system and prevent us from running completely like a mechanized clock.

Furthermore, I completely support PRC and the CAP process from not overlapping in time, with perhaps only allowing the TL/TLT selection process to overlap when necessary. Once concept submissions start, I feel like attention spams will be diverted too much.

So, just my two cents on these matters.
 

paintseagull

pink wingull
is a Top Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
We're dragging our heels a bit here and Birkal intended to close this a while ago so let me just....

OP said:
All Policy Review Committee threads are put on a timer when created (one week). They need to be done by that time with a decision reached.
- No consensus. Doug has proposed timeboxing ALL threads. I'd suggest we start a new topic about timeboxing in general, for PRC and for regular threads, since the pros and cons are essentially the same in both cases.

OP said:
Policy for the Create-A-Pokemon Project is handed to the moderators, who will work with community members to revise the project as needed.
- No appetite for this at all

OP said:
The Policy Review Committee will not have a "block of time" as it has now, but rather, will run concurrently with the creation process.
- "NO" seems to be consensus here.

OP said:
Different PRC members run and update individual threads (note, we're sort of doing this now with mixed results).
- Not sure what to say about this, since we are already doing it. I think we generally agree that this works and should be continued.

Some other suggestions that seem to be generally supported but that don't need formal rule implementation (I think?)

bmb Quanyails jas srk said:
All PRC threads should begin with either a Proposal, a Problem that requires a Proposal, or a Topic of Discussion. / We start at the conclusion proposal instead of having to piece one together from discussion.
- Basically just solid advice for anyone who wants to lead a discussion effectively

bmb said:
Give the OP full control over the discussion; specifically, let them choose when to call a vote and when to close the thread
- An extension to the 4th original suggestion from the OP

-------

So, shall we do a new topic on timeboxing?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top