Plus
中国风暴 trademark
Approved by Bass
This thread exists to address problems in current PRC that I feel need to be attended to.
Take out the existing members rule.
What you did 4 CaP projects ago is not very relevant to what we are dealing with today. Furthermore, PRC members must be regularly active on the forum. Many people in the current Committee are not. This might even promote more activity on the forums, forcing people to be regularly active. The thing is, what's now is now. What's past is past. Although this may cause inconvenience for some, it is important to ensure that a user is contributing frequently, especially in more recent times. Every application should be handled the same way, and just because some people have served on the committee before does not make them right for the current job at hand. CaP is always changing.
Examples of contributions should mostly be made up of current contributions when using examples in applications, because current contributions are obviously more relevant to CaP today. I myself, as a PRC member from when it first began, do not feel that this is a fair rule. Everybody should get an equal shot, and just because they got accepted once does not mean that they will regularly be active. As time passes by, I can picture the PRC being very cluttered and would just be a giant group of CaP members. This should not be the case. Taking out this rule will prevent this.
Obviously, there are a few cons to this, the main one being inconvenience. However, I believe this inconvenience is necessary. As I've said countless times already, PRC should not be taken lightly. With PRC comes many important choices, one being choosing the next TL. If there are current contributors in the PRC, there are informed voters. I do not want any uninformed voters in the PRC. As such, it is best to take out this rule overall.
Change the application format.
Each Policy Committee application would be submitted in the following format:
Increase exclusiveness in the Committee
I think PRC should be pretty exclusive. As such, I think we should treat it this way. You may say that this is "elitist," but the idea of this Committee is. If we are going with such an idea, we should keep it this way. I think that the PRC is a great idea to make intelligent votes apart from regular polls which have a tendency to be popularity contests. However, the PRC will begin to become a group that makes popularity contests happen if we keep going the way that it is now. As a result, I really think that taking action upon this is necessary. Again, I believe PRC members should be chosen based on what they have done now, and not entirely what they have done in the past. So, with that in mind,
I want to hear your opinions on this, and if you have been a Past Committee member, I'd especially like to hear your opinions on this.
----
Perhaps my solution is not the best idea. Nonetheless, I really think that there needs to be change in the PRC. The way that it is now is definitely not what it was meant to be.
This thread exists to address problems in current PRC that I feel need to be attended to.
If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, it is strongly recommended that you do not post in this thread.
The Policy Committee is designed to be only for those held in high regards in the forum, and are burdened with important choices to make. This should be taken seriously, and members should only be chosen However, I do not think that Policy Committee should even be called a Policy Committee today. Many times will I see a Policy Committee list with many inactive users of CaP, and some that haven't even contributed to the forum at all. I believe that we have driven off the path intended for the PRC, and instead we have simply turned it into a group of cool CaP members, or perhaps just cool people in general. Obviously, this should not be the case. I will not call out names, nor will I bash specific users, but the PRC is not as exclusive as it should be. Such a Committee should be only chosen based on regular activity and dedication to the project. A quick glance at our current Committee does not live up to this standard. People that are not regularly active on the forum are still chosen to be in the Committtee, and are normally selected. What I am proposing is a stricter selection of this committee, because it is more inclusive as it was before. I am suggesting these changes:This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding CAP policy, process, and rules. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum. The posting rules for Policy Review threads are contained here.
Take out the existing members rule.
What you did 4 CaP projects ago is not very relevant to what we are dealing with today. Furthermore, PRC members must be regularly active on the forum. Many people in the current Committee are not. This might even promote more activity on the forums, forcing people to be regularly active. The thing is, what's now is now. What's past is past. Although this may cause inconvenience for some, it is important to ensure that a user is contributing frequently, especially in more recent times. Every application should be handled the same way, and just because some people have served on the committee before does not make them right for the current job at hand. CaP is always changing.
Examples of contributions should mostly be made up of current contributions when using examples in applications, because current contributions are obviously more relevant to CaP today. I myself, as a PRC member from when it first began, do not feel that this is a fair rule. Everybody should get an equal shot, and just because they got accepted once does not mean that they will regularly be active. As time passes by, I can picture the PRC being very cluttered and would just be a giant group of CaP members. This should not be the case. Taking out this rule will prevent this.
Obviously, there are a few cons to this, the main one being inconvenience. However, I believe this inconvenience is necessary. As I've said countless times already, PRC should not be taken lightly. With PRC comes many important choices, one being choosing the next TL. If there are current contributors in the PRC, there are informed voters. I do not want any uninformed voters in the PRC. As such, it is best to take out this rule overall.
Change the application format.
Each Policy Committee application would be submitted in the following format:
Current and Past Contributions
The application would include examples of the user contributing to the forum in both current time and the past. This way, the moderators would have an instant idea of what this person has done to deserve a spot on this Committee. If a user has only made past contributions and not current, they should most likely not be accepted. Without doing this, Moderators are left to think about what the member has done for the community, making choices more confusing. This will ensure that current contributors are in the PRC, while old veterans have to make sure that they are still active in order to have a spot. The PRC, in my opinion, is about real time. Whether you lead CaP 2 and came back to join the committee is not a reason alone. Although contributing in the past is definitely a good thing, contributions in the present time are necessary.
Server and Forum Activity
The Committee selection is based primarily on activity. The server is where one contributes to playtesting, while the forum is where one contributes to the overall project. Both the Server and the Forum make up the project, so Moderators, again, will have a good idea of how active a user is. There's a good mix of intelligent server and forum members. Being active on the forum means that members talk in PR threads, and participate frequently in discussions and analyses. Being active on the server means that memberrs battle regularly on the cap ladder to playtest pokemon and show forum goers what kind of impacts our projects have made in the OU Metagame.
Increase exclusiveness in the Committee
I think PRC should be pretty exclusive. As such, I think we should treat it this way. You may say that this is "elitist," but the idea of this Committee is. If we are going with such an idea, we should keep it this way. I think that the PRC is a great idea to make intelligent votes apart from regular polls which have a tendency to be popularity contests. However, the PRC will begin to become a group that makes popularity contests happen if we keep going the way that it is now. As a result, I really think that taking action upon this is necessary. Again, I believe PRC members should be chosen based on what they have done now, and not entirely what they have done in the past. So, with that in mind,
I want to hear your opinions on this, and if you have been a Past Committee member, I'd especially like to hear your opinions on this.
----
Perhaps my solution is not the best idea. Nonetheless, I really think that there needs to be change in the PRC. The way that it is now is definitely not what it was meant to be.