Policy Review Policy Review: Concept Driver - the Re-envisioned TL (VOTE Closed)

[Deck Knight]

Approved in conjunction with Birkal*

Policy Review: Concept Driver - the Re-envisioned TL

Back in the other Policy Review Thread of Import I mentioned a proposal for re-envisioning the TL. This post will contain my proposal and begin a discussion about the role of the TL historically, what we should change, and how we should change it. I warn you, there will be a lot of background before I get to the proposal, get a drink first.

History of the TL:

Way back when in the olden days when CAP was a new forum, Cooper was our first project leader. After cobbling together a hodgepodge of threads we eventually managed to create the first CAP Pokemon, Syclant. From there, Cooper passed the baton to Hyra, who took over as we tweaked the process a little more and assembled Revenankh for playtesting in the CAP metagame. The first real topic leader wasn't established until CAP 3, where Gothic Togekiss was nominated and selected to run the next CAP Project. This was the beginning of this use for the Policy Review Committee, CAP's group of elite project members and moderators.

For CAPs 3 through 8, we had what is now referred to as the "weak TL." Basically what they would do is cull minimally from the selections put forward by the community in order to ensure maximum democracy, and exercise a minimum amount of control over managing and responding to posts in threads. Effectively they were managers of the process rather than visionaries.

The issue with this approach is that certain unscrupulous, boisterous, loud-mouthed medieval-handle-based users who shall not be named (among others) managed to gain ever more influence over various slates and choices by filling that vacuum with their own thoughts and arguments. This led to CAP 9, 10, 11, 1, and 2 being led under what is now referred to as the "strong TL." The key difference between the weak TL and the strong TL is that the strong TL was called to take a much more assertive role in taking initiative for the project and being much more discerning in slate choices to maximize competitive ability. There can be no doubt it succeeded. Colossoil and Krillowatt were so effective that a backlash occurred on how to handle the power creep that came with optimizing stats and movepool.

Under the new, more stringent regulation of stat limits and movepools along with strong TL leadership Voodoom, Tomohawk, and Necturna were created. These creations were much more balanced on paper and in practice than their predecessors.

Which brings us to today.

The Policy Review Committee as a mechanism has come under fire by various users over the years for being much less democratic than CAP is in general, and furthermore for basically being a circle of self-ingratiating praise for its own sake, picking insiders and long-timers and not necessarily following every tradition CAP otherwise embodies.

As such, I do not feel the Policy Review Committee should select a Topic Leader anymore. As to the Topic Leader itself, we had always had one because CAP tries to balance democratic means with high-quality competitive ends, and this is much easier to do when you put a single person in charge. The Topic Leader, especially in the strong model, was very undemocratic in many of the ways the position operated.

Moving Forward:

As we attempt to strike a new balance, the following thoughts come to my mind.

1. We still need to preserve the meritocracy of having someone specific as a guide and vision.

As anti-democratic as the TL position is, it's a necessary part of making sure the project doesn't lose focus. It is also the very embodiment of meritocracy, allowing users who have put a not insubstantial amount of time and effort to have a chance at shaping the next new test on the competitive metagame.

2. Moderators should remain as guides and equals to their peers, and share responsibility with topic leaders on the direction of each project.

CAP has always had a unique and special relationship between its moderators and the multitude of newcomers and creative people the project attracts. Under the new proposed system, moderators have more specific duties in each part of the process, but we should not forget that with the exception of disciplining flames, persons who don't read the FAQ, and general bad behavior, are basically on the same playing field as everyone else when it comes to submissions, polls, etc.

3. Given 1. and 2., although whatever we replace the Topic Leader with, if anything, moderators will now have generally more influence in each step of the project. We aren't just the peacekeepers anymore, but mutual facilitators who are trusted to keep the project going if there are unforeseen circumstances. The TL has been such a stressful job in the past that invariably people go through it, only to leave later for work, or family, or because we drove them bonkers. Hopefully we'll have less of that.

And so, with the background out of the way, here is my proposal for a replacement to the Topic Leader:

Concept Driver:

Concept is indisputably the most important part of CAP, especially if we're going to venture outside the OU metagame, as several proposals and arguments have suggested. Effectively what I want to do is give the person who wins the concept poll a higher level of discretion over the project's direction than they would have under the previous system. Rather than having a TL nominated by the PRC interpret a submitted concept, it will be discussed and followed-through with the source.

Pros:

1. Retains the meritocratic element of CAP, rewarding someone for having a unique or good idea that caught the attention of their peers and won in a forum-wide survey.

2. Allows the moderators to speak with the author and refine the concept into something much bigger, or more focused, or more comprehensive than it was initially, ensuring a high-quality product.

3. Removes the anti-democratic nature of the PRC process, as well as the time spent on that process since the Concept Driver will be chosen after the concept poll is complete, and the concept will be fully fleshed out in the Concept Assessment stage.

Cons:

1. People with brilliant concept ideas and people with lots of time to devote to CAP over the next two and a half months can quite easily be mutually exclusive. Even with moderators ensuring the process continues since they aren't completely reliant on a TL for a slate, it still places a significant amount of stress on anyone submitting a concept, and we don't want people to refrain from submitting because they don't feel they have the time or commitment to be a Concept Driver.

2. In such a case as 1. there are few meritocratic ways to go about finding a replacement. The person with the runner-up concept may have proposed one wildly different than the winning concept. While TL's chose ATLs in a top-down fashion, Concept Driver's out for inactivity or inability to commit is not that simple. That said, if the winning Concept Driver were to select an assistant, I don't imagine the drama level would be that high. It's still a concern.

3. While unlikely, it is possible the winning concept is really too vague for anything to be gathered out of it, even with a meeting of the minds between a potential Concept Driver and the moderators. A previous example would be something like Psychological Warfare, a concept that is interesting but has very few concrete parameters to work from. While a strong CAP project could still come out, the frustration of the process could repeat some of the problems of the TL system without the focused direction (even if thought wrong) of it.

Ultimately, I feel the Concept Driver would make for a fine experiment in replacing the TL despite some of its real and imagined drawbacks, and I seek the feedback of the Policy Review Committee in brainstorming new ideas.

- - - - -

Ballot:

Before completing your ballot, please read over the thread if you have not had the chance to follow it. The ballot motions can be vastly different in substance from the original proposal, and reading the thread provides context for how the ballot measures came to be.

Please provide a bolded YES or NO vote to each of the two motions proposed:

Motion 1:

The CAP Topic Leader Guide will be updated to

Remove the following:

Under Responsibilities:
Create and moderate all threads that pertain to the construction process—this includes polling, discussion, and submission threads

At the end of the article:
Once selected, the Topic Leader must pick an Assistant Topic Leader, whose job is to serve as a backup to the TL in cases when the TL cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the job. The ATL may also lend assistance to the TL when it comes to tallying votes and other tasks that require a lot of work.

Add the following:

At the end up the article, under a section titled Topic Leaders and Moderators:

• The TL is made into a project mod of CAP so that closing/deleting/etc. are available to him/her for the duration of the CAP.
• Moderators will open threads for each part of the process. Threads made by moderators start closed. The TL will be the first reply in every non-poll thread, and after their post the TL will unlock the thread for further discussion.
• The TL will close project threads with their slate.
• The TL is expected to maintain contact with moderators and alert them to any upcoming absences when possible, so that the CAP project can keep pace.

YES
NO

Motion 2:

The Moderators will post a Topic Leader Nomination thread, and after selecting a slate of candidates, will hold a public bold vote (either IRV or direct vote depending on the number of candidates) to determine who will be the Topic Leader for the next CAP project.

YES
NO


This poll will be open for 48 hours starting from 04/01/2012, 9:00 PM EST.

 

[Birkal]

Please note that just because I approved of this topic doesn't necessarily mean I agree with Deck Knight's proposal. Of course, I agree with the CAP history lesson he provided and the three numbered points under the "Moving Forward" section. However, the idea of a "Concept Driver" doesn't strike me as the best way to move forward. Let me list some points as to why I don't particularly agree with the concept:

• Providing a concept does not equal desire to lead. If we did insert a concept driver into CAP, we'd essentially take away the pure form of the Concept Submission stage. Now politics would be involved in terms of voting for the concept not because you think it suits CAP, but rather because you think the writer suits CAP. See the difference? Furthermore, who says the winner of the concept poll wants to take a leadership role? Perhaps the concept of a user who just wants to vote and not participate anywhere else gets chosen. What then?
  
  
• Concept driver already exists in both the form of TL and concept submitter. This is a multi-faceted point, so let me be clear on both parts. When a TL slates their desired submissions, they essentially become the driver for that concept. They slate the ideas that they can get behind and work with. So in essence, the TL is already driving the concept.
  
  Furthermore, I personally believe that concept submitters do already have some driving force within the CAP that their concept is chosen to suit. Perhaps this is just biased by Korski's excellent participation over the past two CAPs. Whenever I have seen him post the past two CAPs (CAP1 and CAP2), his posts are always "notable" to me. That doesn't necessarily mean that his thoughts are more valuable than others! But hearing valuable thoughts from the concept submitter throughout the process already occurs, in my opinion. The same applies for art; Yilx's thoughts in the past CAP2 Sprite Submissions topic have been notable to me as well. Or maybe that is just me being crazy and looking too deeply into things! Heh. Regardless, I think that there are already those who "drive" the concept that make having a "concept driver" needless.
  
  
• Concept Driver puts too much focus on Concept Submission. Many would argue that Concept Submissions are the most important part of CAP. I personally agree with that statement, but it is up for debate. By installing a Concept Driver, we'd be putting even more emphasis on Concept Submissions, which I think could potentially have some unforeseen negative effects on the rest of the process.
  
  I'd like to bring our current TL, Rising_Dusk, to the forefront as an example. I personally think that he excels in many areas, but his forte (in my opinion) is in metagame knowledge and battling skill. I believe that this was absolutely necessary in driving Necturna's concept of Sketch Artist. It required a Topic Leader who had considerable knowledge of the OU metagame to make sure that a Pokemon given Sketch would not be terribly broken. By installing a Concept Driver, we'd only be glorifying the concept submission stage, when other areas, like battling, metagame knowledge, and movepool experience would fall to the wayside.

Now that I have gotten all of the "negativity" out of the way, I'd like to present what I consider to be the best route for CAP in terms of our Topic Leader. I propose that we keep the TL position but ditch the ATL position. I think that there are lots of positive benefits to having a TL. It rewards the hardest works of the CAP community and encourages our most active submitters to do their best. It also allows for some community bonding in terms of "we made this as a community" rather than "the moderators made this for us." Overall, being a TL is a positive experience for both the individual and the community.

My issue lies with the ATL position. While it's good to give another user "some" experience with leadership under the TL, they are not the most valuable resource a TL could have. CAP moderators, on the other hand, are a wealth of knowledge that are always willing to pitch in and help. It is for that reason that I'd like to replace the ATL position with moderators. If a TL has any questions or needs any guidance, they should be asking the CAP moderators who have much expertise in how the process occurs. Why would they want to ask an ATL questions anyways; the Topic Leader is chosen over the ATL for a reason! The CAP moderators are always present throughout the process (it's part of their duties), so they'd easily be able to chip in wherever guidance is needed. Furthermore, they could move the process along when the TL is temporarily absent, which would lead to making CAPs in a more timely manner.


I think there are a variety of paths than can be approached when looking at the TL position. I think they all have many positives and a few negatives. It's our job to decide which path we think suits us best. In terms of my proposal, I really have no thoughts on how the TL should be elected and if they should be a "weak TL" or a "strong TL" during the process. All I know is that I think the TL position adds lots of flavor, reward, and expertise to CAP. Losing that resource could hurt is deeply in the long run.

For the record, I don't plan on applying for the TL position anytime soon, whether my proposal is agreed up or not. I'm just stating this to show that I'm not gunning to keep the TL position here just so I could take it. I do legitimately think the TL role is an asset to CAP that makes us unique and gives us drive. Thanks for your time!

 

[tennisace]

For the record we aren't keeping the TL position in any capacity, including this concept driver idea. The fact that a simple poll can determine who gets to guide the CAP process is completely opposite my vision for the direction of CAP.

 

[capefeather]

I disagree with the concept driver idea as stated, basically because of what Birkal said. The ATL removal I'm not so sure about, though. I haven't been a TL so maybe actual TLs could give some more insight as to how they used their ATLs. (How many of them are still here, though? Argh, stupid "curse"...)

Let's be clear about something. We should be careful about how we use terminology concerning the TL position, because it can potentially end up being rather misleading. The Topic Leader position obviously still exists; it's just that tennisace's proposition has divided it amongst the mods. This is important to remember because many of the advantages and disadvantages of a single TL are preserved in the "mod TL" system.

The two advantages I see in replacing the current TL with the role-divided mod TLs are:

1. The TL is guaranteed to be a mod, so he/she has full (enough) moderation powers over the threads that he/she is supposed to moderate and guide, and doesn't have to bother other mods to play janitor.

2.

The TL has been such a stressful job in the past that invariably people go through it, only to leave later for work, or family, or because we drove them bonkers. Hopefully we'll have less of that.

Notably, these two advantages come from different aspects of the change. Role division satisfies (2), while the mod aspect satisfies (1).

All that said, I am confused as to how this new power structure came into place. I don't see why each mod has been given such specific designations. As far as the competitive aspects go, only two of the five mods have engaged in significant responsibility over a metagame outside of CAP for more than a couple of months. So I don't really buy the idea that the mods have been designated in areas of strength.

Additionally, the permanence of the mod TL system has potential to stagnate the CAP process. Each new TL brings something different to the table and can (and should) mold the process to fit the situation. I think that Rising_Dusk had the right idea with his multitype discussion for Necturna, and I have sneakily experimented with ways to make my OPs more readable for Necturine. reachzero also implemented some ideas for keeping track of submissions. Even the fun and amusing stuff like thread icons and rubber duck pictures have a real positive impact on the enjoyability of the CAP process. I'm not saying that the mods aren't capable of all this, but five perspectives can only bring creativity for so long. If past TLs haven't been proactive in bringing new ideas to the process (and perhaps many TLs haven't), that is not the process's fault.

I didn't really appreciate the appeal of TL variety myself until fairly recently, when it came up in #cap multiple times. That's why I may have said I could get behind the mod TL system before (and I suppose I still could get behind some variation of it), but seem to be rather against it now. I think these concerns trump the logistical issues solved by (1), since sometimes the TL is a mod anyway (in fact, the past three TLs in a row were mods) and afaik we could still promote a TL to project mod to give him/her the necessary powers to do his/her own janitorial work. Besides, if one of the mod TLs is incapacitated for whatever reason, aren't the other TLs still in a position where they have to step into "someone else's" leg of the project?

The ideal system would probably be one that still satisfies (2) and maybe (1) to some extent, while still giving the community an opportunity to choose temporary but meaningful leaders. This is what I take issue with in the following quote:

As for prevos, this is where users will still have the ability to lead the process. At the end of each new CAP, we will pick the most prolific poster in the previous process to lead the prevo. This is because the prevo doesn't require much discussion for moderators to lead, but Deck Knight is assigned to watch over it anyway for redundancy. It gives everyone a concrete leadership position to work towards in addition to the PRC.

"Hey zarator / DarkSlay / Vader / whoever else, you can still be part of our leadership team!!!!! ...by leading pre-evos. And you're still pretty much babysat by Deck Knight." The process supposedly allows for some semblance for the old TL, but by admission, it has fewer responsibilities and less of an opportunity to fail, in fact apparently not enough for the mods to actually bother with. This honestly comes off as kind of a slap in the face to people who nominated themselves in the past and lost graciously, perhaps waiting for the opportunity to try again next time. As far as anyone is really concerned, there is no more next time.

For the record we aren't keeping the TL position in any capacity, including this concept driver idea.

Who is "we"? This is something we all need to think about periodically and repeatedly, but CAP is very much a "we" operation. I feel that to be included in that "we" is to be included in the decision-making process in some capacity, with a reasonable expectation of being heard and entertained. "We" is not just the supermods, or the admins, or Articuno64, or mild approval by DougJustDoug, or even just the PRC. "We" is CAP and its community.

 

[jas61292]

What Birkal said.

Seriously though, I don't want to repeat too much of what has been said already, so I'll start off by saying that I agree with pretty much everything that was said by Birkal. I won't repeat all the details, but to summarize, I think Deck's proposal puts way too much emphasis on the concept poll, and is not really a good way to pick a leader. At the same time I feel that the TL is an important position and should not simply be discarded. As Deck said over in the Mission Statement discussion thread, having the CAP process be a meritocratic system is definitely a good thing, and there are few better ways to implement such a system then by letting the best contributors have the opportunity to lead the process. However, as Birkal suggested, I do not really see the need for the ATL position. By letting the mods more directly be back ups, it can help keep the process on track better.

That was kinda a bad summary, but, yeah, if Birkal said it, I probably agree.

That being said, there are a few other things I would like to add in, mainly on the benefits of having a TL over just being led by the moderators. As capefeather began to touch on, having different leaders for each CAP helps provide some variety to the process. Each TL puts their own spin on things, and this helps us learn what things work and what things don't, and it helps us have more fun along the way. I think having a different person at the head of each CAP helps the project evolve, and CAP is better off for it.

There is one other major concern I have with a mod led CAP system. Under the current system, TLs and ATLs are not allowed to submit anything during their project. This makes plenty of sense as one may be more inclined to try and sway a vote towards ones own entry if it was allowed. What concerns me with a mod led system is how this would transfer over. Assuming it would be kept in tact (which is logical), then at best mods would never be able to submit to the parts they lead, and at worst, they would never be able to submit to any part of the process at all, depending on what decision is made on the matter. I'll be completely honest; when I first read these proposed changes, my first thought was how big of a loss it would be for the CAP project if Deck Knight could never again submit any stat spreads or movepools. Personally, I think the loss of contributions from the moderators is reason enough not to implement such a system.

Overall, I feel that the last few CAPs have gone smoothly enough, and that making a change for the sake of making a change is unwise, especially when dealing with something that has produced such great results recently. That being said, if replacing the ATL with the mods can help make things run smoother, than I feel that would be the best course of action to take.

And props to cape for that last paragraph. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Deck Knight]

Speaking as the guy who led the way and published the "Active ATL Guide" I should note that ATL has always been powerless as far as impact. The goal of an ATL was to provide additional feedback and scrutiny for the concepts and keep an active discussion with the TL whenever possible. It was basically a fallback for when the TL disappeared, and it's why I was the TL for the latter half of Voodoom when Fuzznip left.

In any case since cape brought it up, I want to reiterate strongly with a point of privilege:

Don't talk about what "we" are doing when you turn around and say "my" vision. We all know vaguely what that is tennisace. The problem is twofold: first you've tried to dragoon it past the forum and fiat it without consulting the community, and second "vaguely" is the perfect word to describe it. You've been a mod of CAP long enough to know this forum does not operate like that and furthermore cannot operate like that. Whenever we change a policy it behooves us to consult more than just the SMod+ forum and try to impose Smogon tiering processes on a metagame basically immune to them in its current state.

That's why my proposal is in the form of a lengthy dissertation and includes a pro-con list. As glad as I am to have forums for facilitating the CAP metagame, I'm not intent on throwing the CAP culture baby out of the CAP inactivity bathwater we've theoretically removed in starting up the CAP metagame and the forums facilitating it.

People often complain about the lag time between new CAP Projects. By declaring the TL dead, fiating mod responsibilities, and mandating that CAP Concepts would now be proposed solely for the CAP metagame, you basically made it impossible for us to start the next CAP, because you offered little to replace it but the inkling feeling that CAP 3 starts whenever tennisace puts up the first Concept thread. That's what I read into it anyway. The reason why I let the new forums go up and waited for the PRC council to get together instead of making a big stink about it when this first came up is because we do need to revitalize activity in CAP and having a CAP metagame with rewards and privileges for contribution facilitate that. The other reason is because when you and I clash, jack shit gets done on the forum, so I needed a sounding board to say "hey, maybe all this new stuff needs to be clarified before we alienate people."

That's enough inside baseball. The point is nobody ever discussed completely abolishing the TL in the first place, and I no longer feel the need to humor the idea anybody did. The only "head of CAP" that exists is named DougJustDoug, and he's been spending the last several years giving the moderators as a collective body more power to run the affairs of the forum, which we have been doing effectively ever since we fixed the technical issues of not having a BW platform for CAP. I'm ecstatic that we now have the resources to be able to formulate the CAP metagame, something that's been a lingering issue in the background for a long time. What I won't accept is the wholesale refacing of the process because one person decided to appoint himself king. The TL Nominating System has worked to a greater or lesser degree for 10 CAPs. The idea we'd abolish it without so much as a Policy Review Thread is idiotic.

With that point of privilege accomplished, I'd like to turn this back to what are we going to do about the TL. If you're adamant in abolishing it tennis, then give us the full depth and breadth of your vision, because capefeather is right: I am the champion of submitting stat spreads and movepools, but that's a different skillset from selecting the boundaries for each CAP project's stats, and I'd really like to know exactly how that wouldn't be the case if there's no TL running the show who made the case they have that ability, or otherwise possesses some other unique quality that makes them fit to lead the process.

I'm all for ideas and flexibility, but just like with Cyclohm's Concept, too much vagueness is bad.

 

[bugmaniacbob]

Well, Birkal has given a very admirable case against this new Concept Driver idea thing, and I'm not entirely sure what I could say to augment it. So, I'll leave that particular issue be for now.

Now, on to the main issue. The Topic Leader position is, as Deck Knight has stated and many others have supported over the years, fundamentally undemocratic in its principle, especially in the strong Topic Leader model. I can't fault this reasoning - I myself have often been bewildered by some of the decisions taken by Topic Leaders in the past, or by the options they have slated, and wondered where the support or reasoning for including that option had come from. Of course, this is not in any way, shape or form solved by having moderators take over exactly the same duties. In fact, I'd say it's even less democratic simply because the boys at the top don't change every time the process rolls around again. [/politicsdig]

So, the options with regard to democracy are as follows:

a) Have a Topic Leader / Concept Driver / Moderator / whatever in charge of all decisions pertaining to polls and discussion - one person has the vision which is in theory shaped and moulded by discussions within the CAP forum.
b) All decisions re. polls decided by independent committee, akin to Policy Review - this committee, rather than one person, is responsible for deciding what options are available to the masses, as it were.
c) All options suggested are put up to poll - no weeding or selection at all, as per the most democratic option.

Option b) is really just another way of saying "anything between a) and c)" - between the two extremes. I am of the opinion that this does not solve anything because, individual merits aside, it does not leave anybody satisfied - on the one hand it is likely not democratic enough to satiate the conditions we are attempting to create, and on the other hand it is tedious and time-consuming, and really quite a bit of a waste of time. For me, these considerations override any individual merits. So, we look at the two extremes. These are individual visionary control and popular control. I am against the whole of CAP being able to vote on any option given, as this increases the likelihood of voting quirks occurring and more legitimate options being weeded out in favour of perhaps more "populist" options. If anybody has an alternative that does not involve the "weak topic leader" then I would be glad to hear it, but for my own part I cannot see any way for the project to move forward without a firm guiding hand, be it by moderators or by members of the community.

The meat of the problem. I will not disguise the fact that I am not altogether comfortable with this new regime of moderators who, as I see it, have far more control over the project than just being helpful and supportive to the community. As Deck Knight said, CAP mods were, in the past, merely called upon to delete illegal posts, clean up threads, and approve policy review threads (not saying they didn't do more than this, just that these were their official duties, as far as I could tell). Now they are "mutual facilitators" - but more than that - have an inherent elevated status in the project compared to the rest of us. Personally I liked the almost social atmosphere of a CAP where mods were more relaxed with their powers - and that's why I found it rather alarming when the phrase "these changes are non-negotiable" popped up, amongst other things. These grievances aren't particularly relevant to the issue at hand, but they relate to the point I am trying to make - I do not like the idea of moderators constituting a different, upper class in a project that prides itself on democracy and meritocracy and what not. Perhaps it would not be so different to having a Topic Leader. In fact, it probably wouldn't be. But I can't help feeling that part of CAP's openness and ability to change is that the "power", as it were, is not in any individual group's hands - at least not permanently. I'm worried about what may happen if moderators suddenly had responsibility for almost every facet of the project, besides the ideas. Take from this what you will.

The other doubt I had, on the same subject of the highest tier of office, was the problems that occur with fractured leadership. Part of the reason why the most recent CAPs have been so successful - far more so, in my opinion, than any that came before them - is because they had a strong guiding hand behind them, with, more importantly, a single guiding vision. My own favourite example of this is when Beej left for a few days during Krilowatt - before this, I thought it was the most successful CAP yet, and then it got Magic Guard. Not a great example, I know, but it serves to illustrate the point - if the moderators have conflicting visions on how the CAP may turn out from the onset, or are apathetic about it and just let democracy run its course, or even cause a slight zigzag in the process, we appear to be regressing from the successful model we brought in to counter these very problems.

Lastly, the issue of meritocracy. Being chosen as Topic Leader is without doubt the greatest honour in CAP, even if perhaps not the easiest job. I've never done it, so I wouldn't know. I would have liked to, perhaps, but that's not something I can do now. It's by no means a stretch for me to say that I have often wanted to be one, wondered what I could create, or help to create, and even have looked forward to it as something for the future, or even as a reward for near enough three years as part of a community and a project. No, it's not necessary for enjoyment or participation at all, but it's a great way of reminding users that yes, they are recognised, and trusted enough to guide what amounts to several months' work. It ought to be a privilege, not something routine - which is where it ceases to connect with the new idea of moderators being responsible for individual parts of the process. Moderators are already recognised for trust and dedication - yet the Topic Leader provides an opportunity to reward while at the same time providing the best possible competitive and stylistic edge to the project. Importantly, the Topic Leaders are different every time (assuming, of course, that the current honour code of not applying twice is maintained), so every CAP is unique in its flair and little details. The Topic Leader is something that has grown up with the CAP Project and become fundamentally associated with it, and I'd be very sorry to see it go indeed.

And on another note, the ATL. I do not want to see that go either. It is another important meritocratic step and, as for the Topic Leader, gives a sense of reward. Its actual meaning is irrelevant. The idea of "replacing" with moderators is irrelevant, since these are the jobs they should be doing anyway.

EDIT:

it's why I was the TL for the latter half of Voodoom when Beej left.

Fuzznip (for posterity).

 

[DHR-107]

For the record we aren't keeping the TL position in any capacity, including this concept driver idea. The fact that a simple poll can determine who gets to guide the CAP process is completely opposite my vision for the direction of CAP.

Wait a sec... When did this get decided? I thought CaP was a democracy where everyone had their say? This seems to have literally come out of nowhere apart from a single post that wasn’t even made a sticky. I wasn’t even sure I was going to post here after you wrote that... There seemed to be little point in even having a discussion when you had pretty much already decided what was going to happen. However, after BmB’s and Decks posts I thought I’d re-write and post. I understand that you want to push forward some reforms, but to just say no to an open discussion is not in the idea of CaP.

I believe that the TL should exist as far as aiding the direction of the CaP. However, the mods (or ATL) being used to put pressure on the TL would be a good idea. Take Wyverii posting the Art Thread (for Necturna) when they deemed R_D to be taking too long to put it up. Imo, it was the right decision that some pressure was put onto the TL to keep the pace up. I am not sure on the Concept Driver idea as Deck outlined it. If I submitted a concept, I would rather not be put up for being the leader of the project... I don’t have the experience or the talents for that endeavour. Someone with a great concept might also have literally no interest in steering their CaP past that stage and leave it to the community to see what they do with it. I’m sure the time situation will be talked about in another thread... But Necturna really did (or IS) take (taking) too long. Birkal linked me to a past post by DougJustDoug explaining that he thought 11 weeks was too long for a CaP project. Necturna has been going on for nearly twice that!

I am not really sure on the whole “Strong” or “Weak” TLs either. Yes, the strong leaders sorted issues and generally kept CaP on course, but I think it gives them a little too much power over what the project is, as this is supposed to be community based and driven project. It has been pointed out by multiple people here that if the Mods are not allowed to post Movesets/Stat Spreads/Artwork etc then we are losing some of the best/most knowledgeable contributors to the project. If we lose those contributions CaP Pokémon will be a lot poorer for it.

For those who are reading this and do not understand http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3463251 Will help clear up some questions.

 

[DetroitLolcat]

For the record we aren't keeping the TL position in any capacity, including this concept driver idea. The fact that a simple poll can determine who gets to guide the CAP process is completely opposite my vision for the direction of CAP.

Isn't that what we're supposed to be deciding on in this thread...?

This led to CAP 9, 10, 11, 1, and 2 being led under what is now referred to as the "strong TL." The key difference between the weak TL and the strong TL is that the strong TL was called to take a much more assertive role in taking initiative for the project and being much more discerning in slate choices to maximize competitive ability. There can be no doubt it succeeded. Colossoil and Krillowatt were so effective that a backlash occurred on how to handle the power creep that came with optimizing stats and movepool.

Honestly, I would not agree with this claim. The "strong TL" model has produced some very mixed results. Krilowatt, for example, was not a success at all; in fact, in my opinion it was the biggest failure the CAP project has seen so far. Krilowatt was only "effective" in the metagame because it was grossly broken; it had a ludicrous base 151 HP, Magic Guard, and just about every Physical and Special move imaginable. This coupled with decent attacking stats and a trollish 105 Speed gave Krilowatt very few switch-ins. Colossoil didn't have any safe switch-ins either really, but that's besides the point. In that era of the CAP project, however, gigantic movepools were the norm. I would argue that it was Krilowatt and Colossoil's brokenness, not their effectiveness, that led to the "stat and movepool" Policy Review. CAP did a great job with making Voodoom, and I think the ideology of "less is more" produced one of the best CAPs yet.

However, that's a bit irrelevant. That example was only a criticism of the "strong TL" model that was used from CAPs 9 to 2 in Gen V. Strong TLs have made great CAPs as well; just look at Voodoom and Necturna!

The "weak TL" and "strong TL" models have both produced good and not-so-good CAPs, and both can be effective. However, it doesn't look like the TL as a position will be staying much longer, so let's move on to the more important issues.

1. the Policy Review Committee:

Well, now that I'm on the PRC I think the Committee should have full control over the TL position and that only PRC members should be eligible to be TL.

...


Okay, I agree that the Topic Leader, or whoever the chief director of future CAP projects, should not be chosen by a standing committee such as the PRC. The PRC should be the legislative body for CAP issues, specifically the changes that are proposed between CAP projects. For the same reason, I would hope that the moderators' primary function is to keep peace, not control the creation of the CAP. The Dragonspiral Tower moderators aren't the deciders of OU, UU, RU, and NU tiers, the most experienced battlers are! For this reason, I would oppose a moderator-led CAP project as well.

Another proposal I oppose is the Concept Driver. The person whose concept is chosen should not have a significant responsibility thrust upon them. A lot of people submit concepts simply because the concept seems like a cool idea to build a Pokemon around. The community at large, not the person who submitted the winning concept, should be deciding what happens with the CAP. This might be a meritocratic system, but it is extremely undemocratic. People should be voting for a concept, not a concept tied to a Concept Driver.

I think a return to the "weak TL" model might be what's best for the CAP Project. Some people might think that the "weak TL" model allows for certain boisterous users to gain power in the threads, but if boisterous users become a problem then the moderators should discipline them for threadhogging. A warning in every OP saying "DON'T HOG THE THREAD" should deter loudmouths from trying to jack the CAP, and those that don't listen to the OP will listen to an infraction. The "weak TL" model allows for a perfect balance of meritocracy and democracy in my opinion. With a weaker (but still somewhat powerful) chief executive, the TL remains a well-respected position but the community will still have the bulk of the power.

It was not strong TL leadership that led to great CAPs like Voodoom and Necturna, it was the stat and movepool restrictions (which were a reaction to Colossoil and BrokenWatt).

The CAP project also has much more leeway for mistakes now. With the introduction of the CAPinet (a great idea btw), the CAP community can revise previous CAPs to account for unforeseen errors.

 

[Aerodactyl Legend]

I agree with some points on both sides of the subject. Honestly, I'm pretty open to any logical path we might take the CAP project. I'm primarily supportive of the "Strong TL" model. While the final product may be a hit or miss in regards to the concept, they keep the process and threads on topic and I like the idea of them playing more assertive roles (each TL brings their own unique style as stated above).

I also personally believe that the chosen Concept is one of the most, if not the most, important part of the process. Alongside the Mission Statement, fulfilling it is one of the driving forces for the competitive steps project. It would make sense that the person who submitted it should have good input further down the road. However, anyone could make a good concept, but have no actual qualifications (or the right ones) to help lead the process, as brought up.

I need to go back and look through some more PR threads to make sure I'm right. I know we're focusing on certain things now, but has a small change to the Concept Assessment step been recently proposed? The way I see it, we use it specifically for just understanding the concept better and make general ideas. Maybe more emphasis should be given and strong statements/justifications should be created for each CAP for guidance (although, that's a bit like the questions created for each concept) if the TL positition will no longer exist? As I said, I'm going to look through a couple more threads, so this is just a small thought.

 

[capefeather]

I've never participated in CAP under a weak TL. However, from what I understand it, the main difference between a weak TL and a strong TL is that the latter is allowed (and expected) to exercise good judgment in driving discussions and slating poll options. I'm aware that Rising_Dusk's behaviour as TL put some people off because of how he talked about the CAP project and certain options in polls. I'm aware that I, too, may have been a bit heavy-handed in one or two stages in the pre-evo (name comes to mind). I'll just say for myself that the way I slated poll options relied heavily (though not entirely, because that would be stupid) on my predictions as to what wouldn't fly at all with voters. People were already getting really anxious about how long Necturna had taken to build, and I (like I'm sure just about everyone else before me) didn't want to waste 1-2 entire threads polling 30+ submissions when the vast majority of them wouldn't even get support. I think it would be unfair to say that I cherry-picked my slates, at least more than necessary, other than perhaps in the name thread where maybe I could have slated a couple of more names.

At any rate, I think that the strong TL has gotten some criticism because of how Rising_Dusk handled it, and we all know his personality and way of doing and saying things have attracted criticism in the past. However, I think that going back to a weak TL is not a good remedy. We absolutely need at least one person who can set a firm direction and keep the focus on competitive merit over fanboy desires. I would ultimately say that Fuzznip, reachzero and Rising_Dusk all satisfied this need (that's as far back as I can go... sorry, other TLs), even if the latter acted in a way that some people found off-putting. I just think that this is just a personality thing that can't really be helped, and that calling for a weak TL is kind of a kneejerk reaction. However, I'm not completely against the idea of weakening the TL in perhaps less impacting ways.

---

Well, I might as well post about a thought I've been having, now that I've said all that. This idea goes off the strong TL model, but something similar could apply to a mod TL model.

Let's look at what the TL and ATL are expected to do. Both are expected to:

- lead the discussion
- provide direction
- warn people going off-track

The TL's extra responsibilities are:

- closing threads
- writing OPs
- slating poll options

Notably, the third point is the only one that actually defines the TL and decisively distinguishes him/her from the ATL and other CAP members. The practice of closing and opening threads is largely a formality that kind of "needs" to be done, and otherwise is just another post where the TL can set the direction of the project. Perhaps the TL simply shouldn't be guaranteed the power to close or open a thread. I mean, sure, normally the TL would be allowed to close and open threads if he/she is being quick about them or he/she has set a reasonable time frame beforehand, but if it's taking too long (maybe 48+ hours would be the usual wait time) for no reason relevant to the project (maybe the TL gets busy or something), then the ATL could be allowed and called to step in. The TL could also put the ATL in charge of some stages if he/she can't keep up the pace. I'd imagine that this could be done fairly easily with discussion threads and poll threads, except the first poll thread. This could be a good way to reduce the workload for a TL who is having trouble with moving the process along in a timely manner, while retaining the TL's freedom to guide the process when it's not being detrimental.

This does raise the question of whether the ATL should continue to be hand-picked by the TL. Maybe the TL should just nominate ATLs and put it to a vote. All this could also technically be fulfilled by having the mods take on the ATL's role. I guess it depends on a variety of factors, including whether the mods would be allowed to submit anything.

The biggest flaw I see in this idea is that the TL might become less visible if he/she isn't making all the OPs. If the TL ends up making a direction-setting post after an OP made by someone else, fewer people may actually see it, and the whole process may end up looking more complicated. However, if we're looking to cut down on the kind of down-time that we saw with CAP 2 because of work-related delays on Rising_Dusk's part, perhaps not guaranteeing OPs anymore is a desirable course of action.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I was going to post my thoughts on the matter, but I wanted to call attention to this:

For the record we aren't keeping the TL position in any capacity, including this concept driver idea.

If this is enforceable in any way by tennisace, then this discussion is a waste of time. I would like moderators to post on whether or not we will abide strictly by this God rule and consequently whether discussion had here will have any impact on anything.

 

[Birkal]

If this is enforceable in any way by tennisace, then this discussion is a waste of time. I would like moderators to post on whether or not we will abide strictly by this God rule and consequently whether discussion had here will have any impact on anything.

Going to bed very soon, but I just wanted to point out that this is absolutely open for discussion. The job of the Policy Review Committee is to review the CAP policy as a committee; gee whiz! Deck Knight wrote this topic and I approved it so that we could talk about changes in the process as a community. This discussion will certainly have an impact on the future of the CAP process.

For those of you who don't visit #cap, know that discussion has been buzzing there on both of these PR topics and the future of CAP. In my opinion, it's a waste of time not to discuss this. Necturine is almost done and I'd like to get working on CAP3 as soon as possible. I know I'm not in the mood to wait around for tennisace to decide if he wants to work together as a community or not. He knows that I think he's an incredibly valuable member to the CAP community and that I'd love to have him on board with our discussions as an equal. There is much that needs to be discussed by all thoughtful CAP members, so please, post your thoughts. We are listening =)

 

[Deck Knight]

I was going to post my thoughts on the matter, but I wanted to call attention to this:

If this is enforceable in any way by tennisace, then this discussion is a waste of time. I would like moderators to post on whether or not we will abide strictly by this God rule and consequently whether discussion had here will have any impact on anything.

I can condense my thoughts on this to a single sentence:

If DougJustDoug himself were trying to make the changes previously proposed re: abolishing the TL and reorienting CAP in the way it is being done, the only thing that would have changed in my previous post is a few minor word choices.

The method used is so antithetical to what we've worked for as a community that I'd be compelled to stand up for all the community has built up in the past, and I would have handled it exactly the same way: Let the forums go up, wait for a new PRC, and propose halfway solutions as if the proposed changes were already fiated. Even against the person who I know is the undisputed leader and authority for the CAP project. This is because I trust Doug and the other CAP Moderators (including tennisace) implicitly, and they know I will answer them honestly and not yes-man or BS them on what they propose.

I don't feel the need for the facade of fiat approved changes any longer. My position now until convinced otherwise by hearing the arguments on the merits is that unless and until the PRC makes a vote to change our CAP Process policies, they will remain in effect as they currently exist.

EDIT: more details from a convo with Birkal:

The CAP Metagame on the other hand is a much needed boon to community participation and I've contacted Birkal, capefeather, and Theorymon, who are working on putting together a proposal for the PRC to evaluate before full implementation. Moving forward with the CAP metagame as its own self-sustaining project is a mutual goal.

 

[Wyverii]

Discussion here clearly matters. As an aside. No words can describe how angry I am to come back to situation like this. It's a discussion for another time but I just want to make that clear.

Having the project be maintained by the moderators has always been an appealing idea to me, and I choose not to let it be poisoned by the manner it was introduced. I feel that moderators are put in place for a reason, and that we are trusted by the community to do what is right. If we aren't trusted, then we shouldn't be moderators. We should be the ones to ensure that CaP remains clear and open to all.

I believe moderators should be forced to take a more active role. By giving us the responsibility we're obliged to take those duties seriously. In addition it will force us to communicate more often with both each other and the community.

The biggest downside to removing the TL position completely I can see is the loss of a reward for participants. I can see why people would be very sad about losing that. Though, at the moment it's such a stressful position that the majority that's been in its ranks have left. Would other reward systems be ultimately more satisfying for people?

I think honestly, people aren't ready to let go of TLs as of now.

So here's my proposal:

The TL position still exists, but they are not required to maintain the threads at all. Moderators will post the threads and time limits instead while communicating with the TL, and will provide their own thoughts onto the subject in the thread.

To be clear, the TL (or whatever we choose to call it), is a visionary leader but aren't required to do some of the most stressful parts of the job. They have a large amount of control over the vision of the CaP and will be supplimented by the moderator's knowledge. If the TL for some reason can't be around during a part of a CaP then a moderator will take over. This is ideal because if drama occurs the moderator is in a better position to neutralise it, and protect the TL. Also the project is ensured to run on a timely manner.

Moderator positions during the project can't be set in stone, like what's been provided. Moderators can also be busy or dissappear so it must be fluid enough to be able to cover that. Sections will be covered by the best available moderator.

In the end, this is actually rather similar to what Deck proposed, except it doesn't hinge on the concept. This system will have to based on communication and trust between everybody.

Is this an agreeable arrangement?

TL:DR- Get rid of ATL. Moderators take a strong role in that positon. Moderators are to open and close threads, are in good contact with the TL to provide support, and provide feedback and control in threads.

 

[capefeather]

I can get behind that proposal (though I guess you could tell from my previous post that I would). The only thing is, maybe the TL could open/close a thread if he/she wants to. Maybe you did mean that with your use of the phrase "not required". I just wanted to make that minor point.

 

[Deck Knight]

I can get behind that proposal (though I guess you could tell from my previous post that I would). The only thing is, maybe the TL could open/close a thread if he/she wants to. Maybe you did mean that with your use of the phrase "not required". I just wanted to make that minor point.

Yes. The idea is basically that mods would be the timekeepers and set up the threads. Ideally the TL would be active and close them before the maximum time limit with their slate selection. We'd also have them post after the initial mod post to give the current status on their slate choices.

 

[bugmaniacbob]

words

I am not sure I understand the distinction between the proposed idea and what is currently implemented as per moderator involvement with the process. As far as I was aware, the CAP moderators are obliged, as a part of their required duties, to regulate topic discussions, weed out illegal posts and close threads (or more usually, polls) that had passed their sell-by date. Is this not the case, or is the proposal deliberately designed to be similar to what is already in place? I am not sure what rubber-stamping these official duties is going to actually accomplish, especially in the area of "forcing mods to take a more active role" in keeping the project on track and interacting with the community. If they aren't taking an active role, I'm not entirely certain why they are moderators, but given my own haphazard comings and goings I doubt I'm entitled to lecture on consistent activity. CAP's great strength has always been the relationship between individual members of the project regardless of status, and I'm not sure why this has suddenly come under scrutiny.

I cannot agree with moderators taking total control of the process for reasons I outlined earlier - namely, the establishment of a consistent power divide and possible stagnation of project changes and individual movements, and the importance of the TL both as an ingrained part of CAP's culture and a firm part of the personality of each CAP - but since most people in this thread seem to be agreed that the TL ought to stay for the time being, I don't think there's much more to be said on this topic.

As regards the proposal itself, personally I think that the idea of the Topic Leader no longer being responsible for the threads is not ideal - it may well promote a more lax hand on the project, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I'd rather see the Topic Leaders be making the effort to keep tabs on what is, as it were, their party. One area where I strongly agree, however, is that the pressure on Topic Leaders ought to be alleviated, and that moderators are in an ideal position to help with this. I honestly think that this issue can be solved simply by making the TL less "required" to post their responses to every viewpoint in every thread, more or less every day, and allow the moderators (as well as the ATL - will get to that later) to coordinate discussions in an orderly manner. So yes, I would say alongside capefeather that Topic Leaders should have some measure of control over to what extent they are themselves controlling the project, in the way of opening and closing threads themselves. In fact, I would go further and say that opening and closing threads ought to be the bare minimum that a Topic Leader is expected to do, given that these are the two most significant areas for leading discussion. Everything in the thread runs off the current that the OP generates, and the closing of the thread is the TL's opportunity to explain their reasoning fairly, when they are adamant in their decision.

The last thing I want to say, or reiterate rather, is that I really do want the ATL position to stay. Firstly, it's an entirely harmless yet also very much appreciated position, and has worked well in the past as a rather affable nod to people who did not quite get enough votes to become TL - the traditional second-place position. Admittedly these commiserations are not quite the same as the TL position itself, but it's a nice touch to highlight particularly noteworthy members of the community. In addition, I would say that the more hands on deck, the better - the position of ATL is one of responsibility, even such a slight one, and more than that, gives us another discussion leader who is obliged to post and keep things moving. You may well say, "why would they bother?". They may have many reasons. A determination to prove that they make a good ATL so that they become more likely to get that TL position next time around, or a fanatical, suicidal devotion to the project, maybe. But more than anything else it's just a nice gesture that isn't doing anybody any harm, so it becomes an issue of chopping down the tree in the middle of the garden. You're getting rid of something that doesn't really do anything good or bad, but is nice to have around, perhaps.

EDIT:

The CAP Metagame on the other hand is a much needed boon to community participation and I've contacted Birkal, capefeather, and Theorymon, who are working on putting together a proposal for the PRC to evaluate before full implementation. Moving forward with the CAP metagame as its own self-sustaining project is a mutual goal.

I am fully in support of the establishment and balancing of the CAP metagame, but not entirely in the same manner as some others have proposed, so I would like to know that the PRC is going to be given the power to take apart this proposal in the same way as current elements of policy are being discussed. Simply by the way it was phrased, you seem to give the impression that the PRC's input is not required except when the moderators do not have absolute agreement on implementation of a proposal (not trying to be insubordinate, just requesting a little bit more information regarding this proposal as it seems pertinent to the current order of process, and what has been given is slightly vague).

 

[Deck Knight]

I am fully in support of the establishment and balancing of the CAP metagame, but not entirely in the same manner as some others have proposed, so I would like to know that the PRC is going to be given the power to take apart this proposal in the same way as current elements of policy are being discussed. Simply by the way it was phrased, you seem to give the impression that the PRC's input is not required except when the moderators do not have absolute agreement on implementation of a proposal (not trying to be insubordinate, just requesting a little bit more information regarding this proposal as it seems pertinent to the current order of process, and what has been given is slightly vague).

The basic idea as I understand it right now is that we'll have rules as to what we'll allow for an initial set of Analyses, and what metrics we'll use to make sure these analyses reflect actual realities in the CAP metagame.

To try an analogy, basically what Birkal/cape/Tmon are working on would be akin to the rules in chess. What strategy you decide to employ is up to you, but each piece only has a specific, fixed movement pattern, and only pawns can be promoted for reaching the other side of the field. Essentially they're setting up the structure the metagame will be built around for contributions, not saying "we're starting with OU but with Excadrill unbanned and Syclant with Nasty Plot instead of Tail Glow," just to clear up any confusion. You'll be able to look at those elements and bounce them back and forth, we're trying to err on the side of caution here.

 

[Birkal]

I am fully in support of the establishment and balancing of the CAP metagame, but not entirely in the same manner as some others have proposed, so I would like to know that the PRC is going to be given the power to take apart this proposal in the same way as current elements of policy are being discussed. Simply by the way it was phrased, you seem to give the impression that the PRC's input is not required except when the moderators do not have absolute agreement on implementation of a proposal (not trying to be insubordinate, just requesting a little bit more information regarding this proposal as it seems pertinent to the current order of process, and what has been given is slightly vague).

I believe the point that Deck Knight is trying to make is that we as a community think that developing and discussing the CAP metagame is a good thing (as far as I'm aware). It gives CAP members something to do on the project's "off season" and invites more members into our community. Right now, the CAP metagame is up on Pokemon Showdown! and has received much interest from its members. Exactly how the metagame will function in terms of tiering, revisions, entry of new CAPs, and the like will be discussed with the PRC. It will all be hashed out in another topic; don't fret =)

In terms of the current discussion, I really don't see any advantages to having an ATL rather than not having one. If you're concerned about who will run the pre-evo, then it would be better for the TL to choose their "pre-evo leader" at the end of the project to reward them for their hard work within the main CAP project. In my eyes, the moderators essentially do everything that the ATL is supposed to do. However, if the community would highly prefer to keep the ATL position, then I won't complain! I think it's more a thing of preference than anything. We could also potentially make the ATL position "optional," meaning that the TL can pick whether they want an ATL or not. Just a thought!

In terms of who opens and creates the topics, I believe that a fluid relationship between the TL and the moderators is best method. Wyverii mentioned in IRC that having moderators opening and closing topics should be the "default" while having TLs do their own topics would be done on their own terms. If the TL needs to step out for a few days, whether it be for work or simply to recuperate, then the moderators can just create the topics, which would be normal and typical. If the pace of the project slows down, however, I'd prefer it if the moderators stepped in to create topic to keep the project going at an acceptable pace.

 

[bugmaniacbob]

Fair enough; seems I misunderstood what Deck Knight was saying. Thanks for clearing that up.

In terms of the current discussion, I really don't see any advantages to having an ATL rather than not having one. If you're concerned about who will run the pre-evo, then it would be better for the TL to choose their "pre-evo leader" at the end of the project to reward them for their hard work within the main CAP project. In my eyes, the moderators essentially do everything that the ATL is supposed to do. However, if the community would highly prefer to keep the ATL position, then I won't complain! I think it's more a thing of preference than anything. We could also potentially make the ATL position "optional," meaning that the TL can pick whether they want an ATL or not. Just a thought!

My line of reasoning was less along the lines of "It does nothing so we should get rid of it" and more "It does nothing so why don't we keep it". In fact I had myself toyed with the idea of having the pre-evo leader be chosen as the most stand-out contributor within the process proper, but didn't mention it since it does rather beg the question "so what's the point of the ATL then?". Certainly that's the most meritocratic way of doing it, so there's definitely that benefit, though the method of choosing could probably be debated a bit more. The only positive reasons I have for keeping the ATL are a) it's one more constantly changing discussion leader in addition to the TL and moderators and b) it's a nice gesture to people who aren't, perhaps, as well-recognised as some others in the project, especially considering that moderators would likely not be chosen as ATLs if they're doing the same jobs. But like you say, it's a matter of preference; I simply think that the positives outweigh the negatives. But of course, this debate is difficult to argue on over so few positive points - I'd suggest keeping the ATL for at least the next CAP and then ditching if they are stunningly redundant, or something.

In terms of who opens and creates the topics, I believe that a fluid relationship between the TL and the moderators is best method. Wyverii mentioned in IRC that having moderators opening and closing topics should be the "default" while having TLs do their own topics would be done on their own terms. If the TL needs to step out for a few days, whether it be for work or simply to recuperate, then the moderators can just create the topics, which would be normal and typical. If the pace of the project slows down, however, I'd prefer it if the moderators stepped in to create topic to keep the project going at an acceptable pace.

I would disagree on the point about moderators being the "default" option for opening and closing threads - simply because, as I stated above, the OP and the last post are two of the most important in the discussion and therefore merit the TL's influence over any others. I would also say that a fluid relationship works well in theory (and I would be inclined to support it) but has the potential to go wrong if there is lack of communication, which is supposed to occur; but then, there's always the possibility that the TL cannot be reached, and if the two groups make the OP at the same time, then everything goes more or less pear-shaped. Well, not quite that bad, but I could envision it getting irritating for some.

Personally my ideal solution would be for the moderators to assume that the TL is going to make the OP, but for the TL to be contactable in the hours running up to the point at which the current topic should be closed and the next opened, such that if they are having any problems, the baton can be swiftly passed on, as it were. If the TL is not contactable at this time, then the assumption ought to be that they are not going to be able to finish the OP in time and that the, as Wyverii put it, best available moderator should make the OP instead. This would provide some sort of structure with regard to communication, rather than each OP being an organisational task in itself. I'm not sure how close this is to Wyverii's intended vision, but it seems the two are more or less the same with a slight difference in emphasis.

 

[Wyverii]

Apologies to bmb and cape, along with others, for my rambly post. It didn't make a lot of things clear.

But before I go on, here's something I will be doing regardless of what happens. I will be making a thread to assign mods into overlooking sections of the process. It's not set in stone assignments but rather mods volunteering for the job for that particular time. We already do this to an extent, but it'll be nice to have something that says, 'if something goes wrong during X, talk to X'. This type of communication is important and ties into what I was suggesting.

ATL is redundant, and a somewhat hollow victory for those chosen to be one. The past CAP's runs have only proven that over and over. ATLs do not tend to participate more, do not communicate much with the TL and are somewhat prone to disappearing which would be bad news if the actual TL were to go as well. This even occured after Deck's guide for a strong ATL was written.

So instead I want to smooth the process over by basically structuring the moderator duties. I want mods to offically become timekeepers so that the project will always be running regardless of what happens. We're are to take care of the process, clean, critique, and not lead it. A TL's duties are to state their vision at the start of a thread, direct a thread during the discussion, and finally slate the choices at the end. Actually just posting the OP on its own is actually pretty trivial, since you can get away with just copy pasting a template. That was how our weak TLs operated.

Regardless, I believe that TLs should have the choice to open and close threads. I think after thinking about it that letting the default be that TLs open the submissions is actually a good idea. Mostly because it would require more work to have the TL post their vision after the OP is opened. Otherwise, I don't think there's as much as a problem.

So, here's how it would work:

TL gets picked. Mods are also assigned to certain sections. The mods enforce a general time limit onto the project and will open and close threads when the TL doesn't meet them.

Concept OP is made, TL directs the discussion while the current mod cleans and critiques the thread. Critique is different from direction. It improves the quality of ideas rather than trying to push for a specific ideal.

TL notices that discussion is going to run on longer than usual. Says this to the current mod and they agree. Alternatively, the mod notices first and etc. TL gets an extention to limit. Later on, they notice discussion is dying down faster than anticipated. They can close the thread without approval. When the mod sees discussion is dying down, they will talk with the TL.

TL has some real life issues come up, and must take leave for a while. Since we have this structure they immediately know they can pass the baton to the current mod for as long as needed. Since the moderator is suited to this area, they are guarenteed to have solid direction for this section.

TL disappears. No notice. Time has ticked by for a thread and it's time for the process to move on. The current mod will take over until the TL reappears. The OP can be edited to include their own thoughts after the fact if needed.

This all sounds like common sense, and it really is, but without making all this official mods and TLs tend to be a bit all over the place. You start to get wary of stepping on peoples' toes. Mods hesitate to continue the process when TL and ATL go awol. TLs get confused on who to turn to if they need help. This relationship is far better for everyone involved than the current ATL.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

In general, I agree with Wyverii's adjustment of the TL position.

The main problem with the TL position is the massive time-investment that goes into generating the polls and the threads themselves. I would not be averse to the moderators taking over that task, not just because I trust them in that capacity, but also because it removes that burden from the TL. The TL would still make slates, provide insight, guide discussions, and ultimately showcase their knowledge throughout the development process. This keeps the reward that comes from having a TL position that can be worked towards, but makes it less brutal for the TL such that they probably won't quit afterward.

As someone having been a TL, I have a few requests of this new system to help the TL keep a modest level of control over what goes on:

• The TL is made into a project mod of CAP so that closing/deleting/etc. are available to him/her for the duration of the CAP.
• The TL is the one who closes the project threads, not the moderators. This way you don't have to deal with unnecessary middle management. The mods open threads and the TL closes them when the TL decides the discussion has been fully explored.
• The moderators' OPs are as neutral as humanly possible and serve only to showcase rules and poll options and such.
• Threads made by moderators start closed. The TL should be the first reply in every non-poll thread, and after their post the TL will unlock the thread for further discussion.

These little edits to Wyv's idea will help keep the TL visible to the community and will generally give them control over the project without hurting anything that Wyv is trying to achieve with her ideas.

--

As an aside, I agree entirely with abolishing the ATL position; the mods can take over and either run the project entirely or assign a new TL in the case of a TL leaving prematurely.

 

[Wyverii]

Threads made by moderators start closed. The TL should be the first reply in every non-poll thread, and after their post the TL will unlock the thread for further discussion.

This particular bit solves the problem that made me backpedal on having moderators open threads. I approve of all the adjustments.

In the case of closing threads, if a TL isn't closing them in a timely manner I guess we would be talking to the TL and/or taking over anyway. Added because someone asked in irc.

 

[Deck Knight]

I'm going to second the modified Wyverii / Dusk proposal as to what the TL should do.

Here's the question I want answered on before drawing this to a close:

How will the TL be selected?

My thoughts on this are that we allow the TLs to nominate themselves as usual in one thread. A second thread will discuss the nominations without a vote among the PRC. The final thread will give ONLY a preference vote for the Topic Leader, with no commentary allowed. This will avoid the ego stroking the previous process has been criticized for while still allowing discussion of the nominations.

Any suggestions/improvements/criticisms?