The Application Threshold

↩  characterslimits I believe we should be moving more towards taking into account more than just shuffling about the raw number of vouches required to get approved - and this thread regarding hub moderation applications may be where other applications votes are headed in future

↩  erin I am thinking about making a suggestion that requires people to state their reason in order for their vote to count.

Vouch, however lowering the threshold by an entire 20% doesn't seem right. I would be more comfortable with lowering it by 10% instead.

I just realised i havent vouched yet

Vouch

vouch

I would like to get rid of thresholds entirely, they're bad in reality... I think I've said it before, but requiring set numbers / percentages just tends to lead to an echo chamber and cause more harm than good.

In my opinion, there are 3 types of responses to applications I've seen:

1. Everyone vouches.

Well currently, this already gets accepted via the threshold system.

2. Everyone denies.

This again, is already handled by the threshold system but anyone with common sense can see that there is no downside to denying this applicant.

3. Split opinion.

This is where the threshold doesn't make sense. We need to really look carefully at whether these objects are worth denying our applicant over, and if they should be accepted or denied. Really the threshold doesn't make much sense in these cases because we're not looking whether these objections have actual valid ground. The same could be said for vouches in these situations, however. This is where we need the EAO to actually look into some of these vouches and objections and make their assessment. Using numbers makes it a popularity contest, rather than an objective assessment of someone's ability as admin (or any other rank they're applying for).

↩  Caleb

->>This is where we need the EAO to actually look into some of these vouches and objections and make their assessment.
->> objective assessment of someone's ability as admin

Choose one

↩  Miwojedk I wouldn't call the current bandwagoning very objective either, so you could make the argument that having the Admin Officer weigh the arguments might be a net improvement.

↩  StevenNL2000 A fair suggestion but would require insurmountable trust in the EAO.

I do trust Video to make an informed decision but I won’t support the suggestion to leave it entirely to the EAO until Video appoints an assistant, that way he may get a differing view and someone to bounce ideas off of.

↩  StevenNL2000

Perhaps, but it's silly to assert that you can give an objective assesment of someone if it's entirely left up to a single person.
I don't recall us having these issues when the threshold was lower under the previous EAOs .

Quote

↩  Miwojedk I don't recall us having these issues when the threshold was lower under the previous EAOs .

We have however had issues where serious and valid objections have been raised but people still get through because they have enough votes, and likewise the other way around. Perfectly good applicants get tanked because they aren't liked.

It's why I wanted people to actively explain their rational so these things could be balanced rather than just be a tally up.

↩ @'Ryan' Then one might ask: why should an applicant who is disliked by the Admin community get Admin? What would make the admin community as a whole dislike said player?

↩  Miwojedk The simple answer: Because it's not a popularity contest, it's a question of appointing effective individuals. Sometimes that means those who can be best fit to do the role won't get on with everyone else. Likewise people will naturally gravitate to vouching for people they share interests / get along with, which has no impact on their ability to actually perform effectively as an admin...

Quote

↩ @'Ryan' It's why I wanted people to actively explain their rational so these things could be balanced rather than just be a tally up.

What’s stopping someone who is objecting out of spite to copy or reword someone else’s reasoning?

↩  RedEastWood Nothing, but there's only so far you can reasonably go... Likewise it doesn't really matter because it's still only 1 reason. Your "Vouch" "Neutral" or "Object" in things like the hub mod apps don't actually count for anything, the explanation does. So if 20 people go "Yeah object for X persons reason" and 5 go "Vouch for <Insert 5 different reasons here>" that boils down to 1 reason to not appoint them, and 5 reasons to appoint them. At that point it's about judgement and deciding if you think they're suitable or not based off of the feedback and advise from the community.

vouch, though 75% would probably be better than 65%
neutral

i think the threshold needs removing. i trust video's judgement but furthermore i sincerely doubt ryan is just gonna put up with random ass people being added/denied. this aint the smartnt era nor is this infamas' era. let's just use more of a qualitative than a quantitative approach. quantitative doesn't tell us why things are that way.

I've not merged it, but this thread has a lot of overlap with https://forum.totalfreedom.me/d/2652-require…-reason-to-vote so folks should ensure they're aware of both before making too much of a decision.

I've lowered the threshold down to 75% for both new applications and reinstatement applications that require a vote. I don't plan on going any lower than that. This change does not affect Senior Admin applications.