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