Let's Talk Description Approval

[Fuzzbucket]

That's exactly what I would mind. Lowered standards. I don't see why the red dragon one you cite would be rejected (except the use of the first person...)  - I've seen "This is a black dragon" on an approved one before now. But "This is Pete, a big red dragon. He likes to fly helicopters." is not OK. Sorry, but it really isn't. But auto-approval would let that kind of thing through.

 

I am still pro descrip mods. I really think people would volunteer now.

 

As to the visible thing - you said did it really exist - well, yes, and someone might come across it. Was all I meant ! ☮️

[BrazenChase]

Why do you care so much about gatekeeping what people can and cannot write about their dragons?

 

This isn't English homework. This isn't a job. No one here is a professional and a lot of users are kids, too.

 

The current system isn't encouraging creativity, it is stifling it.

 

What other people write on their dragons unless it is horribly offensive isn't hurting anyone. Frankly I don't care if you think my ideas are stupid. I'm not writing them for you or any mods. I'm writing them for me, and to express myself, as are most people. 

 

Just let people have fun.

[Fuzzbucket]

If you want TJ to change the rules about head canon, ask for that in a separate suggestion thread. Until he decides to allow such descriptions, they are against the rules. Not my rules - his rules. I wouldn't actually care if he changed things to allow present day stuff in there - but he hasn't. It isn't a matter of whether I care or not, it's about a game with rules, that I did not set. (But heavens, if you think it stifles creativity you clearly haven't read some of the descriptions out there. I could recommend a few players whose descriptions deserve much wider viewing.)

 

But this thread isn't about whether it's OK to have space exploration in a description - that's up to TJ to permit or not. This thread is simply about how to get descriptions approved faster.

[BrazenChase]

One of my suggestions was to allow people to write and edit their descriptions freely. So it is relevant to my ideas in my thread to discuss that, actually. 

 

By discussing why it is/isn't necessary is helpful towards exploring that idea. You know, you take all the pieces and work through them to be sure that your idea/solution is sound. Just like why I mentioned other sites, for example--to prove that the idea is capable of working in a non-harmful way.

 

Exploring ideas is fine and that's what I'm doing.I don't intend to suggest solutions without looking into the root of issues on the site. 

[Fuzzbucket]

But they are two very separate suggestions. What you are saying now (and didn't express in you r first post) is that you want TJ to relax head canon. He's never shown any interest in that before, and it's too big a change to chuck in a thread along with can we get descriptions approved faster,.

 

 You need separate threads to get TJ to take them seriously.

Edited June 18, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[RainDear]

Just my opinion. No intention of speaking for anyone else.

 

I am in favor of quicker description acceptance/moderation. I agree with Fuzz that Description Moderators is the easiest/best way to accomplish this.

 

I also agree with Fuzz that until/unless the rules are changed, it is important to continue to follow them. The few rules we have certainly haven't noticeably curtailed my creativity any.

 

The forums are for discussing issues. When someone disagrees with you, it's ok. It's just part of the discussion. Even if some of us want to dig in our heels and keep things as they are they are allowed to express their opinions, and shouldn't be belittled over it. 

[BrazenChase]

I really feel like you are not reading my posts in their entirety.

 

My first suggestion is to allow users to post and edit their descriptions freely. In suggesting this I am also examining why things are the way they are. From there, it is asking the question "Do they need to be this way? Who does it serve?". People are unhappy, and as others have pointed out descriptions aren't easily found unless you are looking for them or someone goes to great pains to highlight them. So for all the time and resources we are using is it actually worth policing something to the point where it is ultimately stifling people's desire to use the function at all?

 

It really feels like you're trying to halt any further examination on this which doesn't help the conversation. 

 

It's one thing to say "Well this is how it is". It is another entirely to ask why it is that way, and if you go further into those reasons to see what purpose they serve and if they are even necessary anymore. 

 

It is plainly a very heavy use of resources in terms of a moderator's time. That time is valuable and the biggest stumbling block right now. With that being the issue as others have mentioned, I took it further to examine if all of that hassle is really worth it for both users and mods. 

 

Asking the questions about why, and if things are worth it is not separate from the discussion at all. It doesn't need to be compartmentalized when this is clearly a multifaceted issue. 

Edited June 18, 2019 by BrazenChase

[osmarks]

I would support at least not having a report option for style (though maybe an automatic spellcheck thing which warns you about errors but doesn't forbid them would be neat - Firefox actually already does this on big text fields), since it's a lot of extra work (EDIT: for moderators, I mean) for no real gain. Possibly a separate "correction" option which only alerts the one describing it would work for that, but it might be kind of useless.

Edited June 18, 2019 by osmarks

[HeatherMarie]

10 hours ago, Cinspawn said:

@Fuzzbucket

I don't think you got either of my points.

 

Point A was that what is the harm in a description hidden somewhere in the site - if it's not out plain to see? It's like me telling you I have a dragon called *insert slur here* on page 7 third row of my dragons. Except I wouldn't tell you. The odds of you stumbling upon that dragon would be very low - and if you do, you can report it then. It wouldn't be doing a lot of harm if no one sees it. The only way it could be seen if it was posted publicly - and then it would get reported even more and (presumably) removed very quickly. (If mods themselves can remove descriptions - this shouldn't fall on TJ who is very busy as far as I can tell)

 

And my second point was - auto-approved descriptions should very much be reportable - but not for style or lore choices (in my opinion) because a very, very big part of the descriptions probably will be reported that way and thus make a huge work load for the mods, kind of defeating the purpose of the report function. I feel like reporting should be reserved for abuse only.

 

So basically (imo), in order to get auto approved descriptions, standards need to be lowered for what counts as an acceptable description. Otherwise it will be an endless back and forth of having to alter your description after you made it - even though there's nothing really horrible about it - just because ... ~*standards*~.

I wouldn't mind if these new kind of descriptions were officially seen as fanon (headcanon) from now on - I mean, it even says "user description" pretty clearly above it. I don't think anyone will take these descriptions as canon. And it would open up A LOT of awesome new storylines and ideas to indulge into as a user. But it will also open up descriptions that say "this is Pete my Red Dragon and he is literally the strongest dragon in Valkemare". (Which I'd totally be ok with, personally)

 

I'm really not sure what Point A is supposed to mean.... Just because someone might not see a spam description doesn't mean it's okay to spam. That's completely illogical thinking. You could apply that sort of thinking to absolutely anything... If someone doesn't see me steal anything, then who cares? If the vandalism I make isn't seen for awhile, is it really against the law? That's not logical. If there are rules, and something breaks those rules, it *matters* regardless of how many people actually see it. 

 

As for your second point, the description rules as they currently are means that lore choices *absolutely* must be reportable. It is specifically mentioned in the on-site guidelines that it is not okay to 'describe your dragon as enjoying flying alongside airplanes' and such. Therefore, those sorts of descriptions *must* be reportable, because it specifically says that it's not allowed. However, if descriptions are changed to be very obviously 'fanon' as you suggested, and the guidelines are changed to reflect that, *then* I could see a cause for lore-elements not being reportable. 

[osmarks]

1 minute ago, HeatherMarie said:

I'm really not sure what Point A is supposed to mean.... Just because someone might not see a spam description doesn't mean it's okay to spam. That's completely illogical thinking. You could apply that sort of thinking to absolutely anything... If someone doesn't see me steal anything, then who cares? If the vandalism I make isn't seen for awhile, is it really against the law? That's not logical. If there are rules, and something breaks those rules, it *matters* regardless of how many people actually see it.

If nobody actually sees that there is spam there, it has basically no effect, and if someone does look they can just report it. The theft example is different, since regardless of whether or not anyone looks something has still been stolen. Spam only has any effect if someone looks.

[purplehaze]

I'm not big on writing descriptions myself, although I enjoy reading those that others write. But I would really hate to have standards changed so that "anything goes" lore-wise. I think having descriptions fit with the rest of the lore of the site is important.

[Fuzzbucket]

3 hours ago, BrazenChase said:

I really feel like you are not reading my posts in their entirety.

 

My first suggestion is to allow users to post and edit their descriptions freely. In suggesting this I am also examining why things are the way they are. From there, it is asking the question "Do they need to be this way? Who does it serve?". People are unhappy, and as others have pointed out descriptions aren't easily found unless you are looking for them or someone goes to great pains to highlight them. So for all the time and resources we are using is it actually worth policing something to the point where it is ultimately stifling people's desire to use the function at all?

 

 

As far as I know, the only thing people are unhappy about is the length of tie it takes to get a description approved. I haven't seen anyone else wanting head canon changed to allow absolutely anything - in terms of lore etc - added.

[UnicornMaiden]

14 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

If you want TJ to change the rules about head canon, ask for that in a separate suggestion thread. Until he decides to allow such descriptions, they are against the rules. Not my rules - his rules. I wouldn't actually care if he changed things to allow present day stuff in there - but he hasn't. It isn't a matter of whether I care or not, it's about a game with rules, that I did not set. (But heavens, if you think it stifles creativity you clearly haven't read some of the descriptions out there. I could recommend a few players whose descriptions deserve much wider viewing.)

 

But this thread isn't about whether it's OK to have space exploration in a description - that's up to TJ to permit or not. This thread is simply about how to get descriptions approved faster.

 

Yes, please split the discussion. I just read through this thread and the conversation is all over the place. It's hard to keep straight who's talking about what. Have one thread to talk about accelerating/streamlining the approval process and another to talk about relaxing the rules governing the descriptions. Two different topics should have two different threads, even if the topics are related to each other.

[Cinspawn]

2 hours ago, UnicornMaiden said:

Two different topics should have two different threads, even if the topics are related to each other.

 

That makes no sense. 

 

 

It's directly related, if I make a new thread about lowering description standards I'll have to give my motivation, which is "to streamline the description process and be able to make them auto-approved, removing the entire approval queue" and then we just have... This thread again? 

[Fuzzbucket]

On 6/16/2019 at 7:25 PM, BrazenChase said:

Hi there! Forgive me if there's another active thread about this, I did not see one in my search.

 

I love describing my dragons, and I know a lot of other users do as well. But the queue can be very daunting and discouraging. I found out that the "Review User Descriptions" function does not actually do anything towards getting a description approved at all. Does not contribute to a counter, or move it through a queue etc.

 

There are a lot of users on DC, and I appreciate the mods taking their time to approve these descriptions when they can but I'm sure there must be a way that is better for both moderators, and users to see results.

 

A few suggestions, please feel free to discuss:

 

1. Let users describe and edit their descriptions freely.

-For example, Flight Rising allows this despite their policies often restricting content on their site to adhere to a general loose "T" rating. 

-Users would see their descriptions instantly, and moderators would not have to sift through massive queues. Saves them work, and gives people what they want.

-People can report objectionable content and the mods can remove it if needed.

 

2. Make the User Based Reviews matter.

-10 Approves gets it through, 10 rejects and you have to try again type thing.

-Or at least have lots of approvals move descriptions up further into the queue.

 

To be clear, I appreciate the mods doing the work they do now. This isn't a critique of our mods, but the system that both them and the users are constrained to, and the strain that it causes on both ends. I can only speak for myself but I find big queues of things to do/write extremely daunting and demotivating (@ all the unnamed on my scroll I am so sorry) and I think some streamlining of this system can benefit everybody.

 

The first post.

 

Nowhere is it suggested that head canon should be abandoned - or even loosened. The only references are to "T" rating and objectionable content.

 

The idea that lore should be abandoned is far bigger than anything in that post. Actually - while I don't particularly support it - I shall start a new thread.

 

Here you go.

 

Now please can we talk descr mods ?

[SkyWolf25]

Please continue discussion under the presupposition that lore-breaking descriptions(ex: sci-fi, modern setting, inserting other fandoms' lore) are in the same category as spam/inappropriate content/everything else that is against the rules in terms of needing to be reported/rejected/moderated, not regarding the level of severity.

I also ask that people be civil when discussing. Throwing accusations at each other is not constructive.

 

 

I agree with the option of selecting description moderators, similar in function to RP moderators.

[Cinspawn]

I don't like the idea of free auto-approved descriptions then, because having your description removed after writing it just because it doesn't fit the lore/style is opening a big can of worms and also completely defeats the purpose of it being 'free'. 

 

Auto approve by number could work, though I'd put the number lower (like 6? Or 7?) but there would still be a need for a faster response time from the mods. So, perhaps more description-only mods. 

[BrazenChase]

7 hours ago, Cinspawn said:

 

That makes no sense. 

 

 

It's directly related, if I make a new thread about lowering description standards I'll have to give my motivation, which is "to streamline the description process and be able to make them auto-approved, removing the entire approval queue" and then we just have... This thread again? 

Thank you.

 

In any case, no, page 3 is not identical to page 1 because we have gone deeper into the issue and continued to explore it. Doesn't mean it isn't relevant. We have been discussing whether or not this degree of labour intensive approval is actually necessary or not and the reasons why. (ie. Mods having ridiculous queues is a huge bottleneck >Ok, do we actually need to throw this workload on the mods? > Here are the reasons why we have this system > OK, are they valid? Are they necessary? > And then somehow it was decided that isn't relevant?)

 

It's a deeper discussion I think needs to happen, and it is relevant to the idea of allowing users to be able to post their descriptions without the queue/censor so long as they do not contain links/hurtful content.

 

I still fail to see how "add more mods!" isn't a bandaid for a system that is taking up a lot of resources for what I see is a very trivial reason. Do we really need people to spend hours of their time deciding if a description maybe a handful of other people will ever see is good enough?

Edited June 19, 2019 by BrazenChase

[Fuzzbucket]

Then you need to update the first post, so that anyone joining the thread knows that things have moved on. That's standard practice in discussion threads. Update the first post when there is new stuff.

[BrazenChase]

Thanks for ignoring my points again.

 

If someone wants to particulate in the discussion, they should probably read what's going on.

 

My points in the first post still stand.

 

Removing the censor of approval phases in option 1 will expidite approval postings by making them instant. The point has not been lost.

Edited June 19, 2019 by BrazenChase

[Fuzzbucket]

Your main point there was that things have moved on from what you first posted.

 

Quote

In any case, no, page 3 is not identical to page 1 because we have gone deeper into the issue and continued to explore it. Doesn't mean it isn't relevant. We have been discussing whether or not this degree of labour intensive approval is actually necessary or not and the reasons why. (ie. Mods having ridiculous queues is a huge bottleneck >Ok, do we actually need to throw this workload on the mods? > Here are the reasons why we have this system > OK, are they valid? Are they necessary? > And then somehow it was decided that isn't relevant?)

 

So that post needs amending so that no-one further responds to it as it stands as that is no longer the same issue.

[RainDear]

My opinion, speaking just for myself, not anyone else.

 

At present (and for as long as I have been here as far as I know) our moderators have a lot of work to do. Because of this descriptions have not been a priority. This has led to description queues that have run into the thousands (at least once it was over 10,000). With description mods, each mod would only have to worry about descriptions. With each putting such time as they can into the issue, it should never get so out of hand, simply because the description mods will have no other forum duties to fulfill. I still see this as the best solution

 

An automated system could open whole new problems. The more you campaign for an automated system, the more convinced I am that it would just create more trouble and consequently more work for already, admittedly overworked mods.

[Guillotine]

Just adding description mods would be better than any automated system, because it's very, very, very easy to game automated systems and honestly... mods that can't handle the workload of the current queue because of other more pressing modwork or life circumstances are not going to be able to effectively moderate automated descriptions. 

 

Edited June 19, 2019 by Guillotine

[olympe]

1 hour ago, Guillotine said:

Just adding description mods would be better than any automated system, because it's very, very, very easy to game automated systems and honestly... mods that can't handle the workload of the current queue because of other more pressing modwork or life circumstances are not going to be able to effectively moderate automated descriptions. 

Well, most of the time, they won't have to. Because it's automated. And for a report to come in, people would have to find the description first, then find it objectionable and report it.

 

Also, if certain users decide to spam-report other players' descriptions, remove the "privilege" to report them. This should quickly solve the issue.

[osmarks]

On 6/19/2019 at 6:05 PM, raindear said:

With each putting such time as they can into the issue, it should never get so out of hand, simply because the description mods will have no other forum duties to fulfill. I still see this as the best solution

Having a bunch of people spend large amounts of time (the queues are very very long) on this is not a long-term viable solution.

On 6/19/2019 at 6:05 PM, raindear said:

An automated system could open whole new problems. The more you campaign for an automated system, the more convinced I am that it would just create more trouble and consequently more work for already, admittedly overworked mods.

What problems? The ones people have actually come up with here seem relatively small and fixable.

21 hours ago, Guillotine said:

Just adding description mods would be better than any automated system, because it's very, very, very easy to game automated systems and honestly... mods that can't handle the workload of the current queue because of other more pressing modwork or life circumstances are not going to be able to effectively moderate automated descriptions.

If 900 descriptions are fine but need to be rubberstamped before they're seen, and there are 100 spammy/otherwise bad ones, then the automated version would be able to save the mods from processing those 900 (maybe minus a few which it rejects wrongly), while rejecting some of the 100 and having moderators look over others. Obviously the numbers won't be exactly like this, but with a well-designed automated system (probably with input from the players currently handling the queue) moderators would do less.