Change flavor discussion threads to flavor submission threads

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quanyails

On sabbatical!
is a Top Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Approved by Wulfanator.

This change affects:
  • Flavor Ability Discussion
  • Pre-Evo Typing Discussion
  • Pre-Evo Ability Discussion
Issue

There is less to discuss in flavor stages compared to competitive stages. Hence, discussion threads for these stages tend to be untargeted. In addition, in the case of flavor ability, there is less need for the Ability Leader to actively lead the thread. This proposal updates flavor-focused discussion threads to follow a similar pattern as flavor-focused submission threads.

Proposal
  • Restructure these threads to be submission-focused rather than discussion-focused.
  • Users can submit up to three submissions for the stage's slate.
    • Why three submissions? This is a compromise between having users commit to one option and ensuring they don't spam as many options as they want to get something on the slate. This limit of three submissions mimics the limit of three WIPs offered in Name, Shiny Palette, and Pokedex Submissions.
  • At least three users need to submit the same entry with sufficient justification for an option to be slated.
    • Why do we need three users to converge on the same option? This acts as a threshold to indicate an option is sufficiently popular and is worth adding to the slate.
  • If applicable, all eligible submissions must be vetted by the appropriate member(s) of the TLT.
Proposed changes

Stage name changes:
  • Flavor Ability Discussion -> Flavor Ability Submissions
  • Pre-Evo Typing Discussion -> Pre-Evo Typing Submissions
  • Pre-Evo Ability Discussion -> Pre-Evo Ability Submissions
OP additions:

Final Submission Post

You must formally submit the options you wish to see on the slate. You may submit at most three (3) options to be considered for the slate.

An option will be slated if:
  • It has been submitted by at least three different people with sufficient justification for its inclusion.
  • The appropriate members of the Topic Leadership Team do not veto the option.
Only make one (1) final submission post.

Your Final Submission post must adhere to the following format to be considered:
  • The first line of the post must have the words "Final Submission" in bold on its own line. No other text may be included before the bold heading.
  • A blank line
  • Your first submission in bold.
  • A blank line
  • "Justification: <your justification here>"
  • A blank line
  • Your second submission in bold. (optional)
  • A blank line
  • "Justification: <your justification here>" (only if your second submission exists)
  • A blank line
  • Your third submission in bold. (optional)
  • A blank line
  • "Justification: <your justification here>" (only if your third submission exists)
Below your submission, you can include additional comments. For example, you can support/oppose other options suggested in the thread. These comments will not affect the final slate.

Example final submission:

(Add example when this change is implemented.)
This thread will remain open for at least one week for feedback/suggestions.
 

QxC4eva

is an Artistis a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Not too sure if I understand the idea behind the proposal. If there's less need for the ability leader to lead the discussion, shouldn't the fix be to simply ditch that requirement? I'm not sure how a submission focused idea follows on from that. There's not a lot of discussion for sure, but I don't think it means we should have a process that discourages it even more and shift the attention over to people's formatting skills. Consider the ability leader / TLT would still have to vet the slate based on people's reasoning so, I feel that should have a higher ruling power over how well an option is formatted or many upvotes it's got.
 

Quanyails

On sabbatical!
is a Top Artist Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Even after removing the need for explicit leadership for flavor stages, we still need a way to identify which options people are discussing. vs. ones people actively want to see voted on. Otherwise, we're still asking leadership to interpret which submissions are worth slating or not. We request people formally submit options in competitive + art stages already, so I think it makes sense to perform a similar requirement with submissions here. Having everything in a standardized format also allows for the use of automated scripts to compile results (AKA it would save CAP staff like me time and sanity).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top