What's new
  • If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 April 2024 is YE 46.3 in the RP.

NTSE Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not surprised the 'mystery box' system didn't work.

That aside though, the primary problem with the NTSE right now is the fact that people other than the submitter, reviewer and FMs are basically heckling, making unproductive and unnecessary posts. Giving power to the NTSE Mods so that they may moderate their own threads to keep things clean would be a step in the right direction I feel. Syaoran brought up the idea that posts in the NTSE needing moderator approval before appearing. I'm all for this, since the person reviewing the thread will still see them and can take the feedback, but will not necessarily 'reveal' the posts to avoid unneeded pressure on the submitter.
 
Pointing out things like the Submission Rules and the Military Buildup Limitations - especially when a submission reviewer "accidentally" misses some of them - is "unproductive," "heckling," and "unnecessary," @CadetNewb?
 
  • Like
Reactions: raz
He's not even willing to listen and try to be mature, Frost.

Cadet, you've posted in a locked thread before. Seems like NTSE mods have mod powers on the NTSE board, dude. So what are you talking about when you say NTSE mods don't have the power to moderate threads?
 
FrostJaeger said:
Pointing out things like the Submission Rules and the Military Buildup Limitations - especially when a submission reviewer "accidentally" misses some of them - is "unproductive," "heckling," and "unnecessary," @CadetNewb?
Click to expand...
put the claws away @FrostJaeger people are actually trying to better the system.
raz said:
He's not even willing to listen and try to be mature, Frost.

Cadet, you've posted in a locked thread before. Seems like NTSE mods have mod powers on the NTSE board, dude. So what are you talking about when you say NTSE mods don't have the power to moderate threads?
Click to expand...
You stop your back biting too.
 
On top of the heckling and the unneeded addition of other posters in these threads there has also been a few issues concerning the treatment and conduct of submissions by NTSE mods and concerned parties I'd like to address with the following suggestions.
  • Posting a Concern and Not Responding Afterward - Happens quite a bit and I find it distressing because one can never assume they've satisfied the challenge due to the lack of response and it can also effect other mods down the road if the thread was not properly claimed. As such I suggest that once a response (tagging the user who placed the concern) is posted by the submitter the concerned party has three days to respond before the matter is considered closed and satisfied. Additionally once this window is closed this concern can not be raised to prevent a submissions approval.
  • One Issue Posting - Another issue I've noticed is a mod's habit of single posting issues, this can be tiresome for the submitter as well as draw out the review process due to each post and response cycle taking days in some cases. My suggestion is that the reviewer make one big pass preferably as their 'I'm claiming this' post and then be granted a limited number of other issue posts (3 or 4?). Afterwards it should be expected that the article should be approved as anything beyond any more responses could be considered a delaying tactic by the mod.
  • Time Between Posts - While there is a submission rot rule as far as a submitter being required to post within a certain time frame there is no such requirement on NTSE mods, as such we have seen cases of submissions taking up to a month due to long delays between posting and getting a response. As such I think an NTSE mod should have a four day timer to respond to a submitter (assuming the above rule is set to 3 responses beyond the first post it gives a maximum of 16 days to review once the submitter has responded to the first issue post.). If the submitter has responded and the reviewer fails to respond the article should go on an automatic 3 day approval timer. If the reviewer responds within those three days on some issue or another this should be considered the last chance and if the four day timer is tripped a second time the submission should be automatically approved.
  • Unclaimed Submissions - On submission to the NTSE the article should be in a ready to approve state... thus if any NTSE mod fails to claim and review it within say.... ten days? It should be automatically approved.
 
Last edited:
Arieg said:
On top of the heckling and the unneeded addition of other posters in these threads there has also been a few issues concerning the treatment and conduct of submissions by NTSE mods and concerned parties I'd like to address with the following suggestions.
  • Posting a Concern and Not Responding Afterward - Happens quite a bit and I find it distressing because one can never assume they've satisfied the challenge due to the lack of response and it can also effect other mods down the road if the thread was not properly claimed. As such I suggest that once a response (tagging the user who placed the concern) is posted by the submitter the concerned party has three days to respond before the matter is considered closed and satisfied. Additionally once this window is closed this concern can not be raised to prevent a submissions approval.
  • One Issue Posting - Another issue I've noticed is a mod's habit of single posting issues, this can be tiresome for the submitter as well as draw out the review process due to each post and response cycle taking days in some cases. My suggestion is that the reviewer make one big pass preferably as their 'I'm claiming this' post and then be granted a limited number of other issue posts (3 or 4?). Afterwards it should be expected that the article should be approved as anything beyond any more responses could be considered a delaying tactic by the mod.
  • Time Between Posts - While there is a submission rot rule as far as a submitter being required to post within a certain time frame there is no such requirement on NTSE mods, as such we have seen cases of submissions taking up to a month due to long delays between posting and getting a response. As such I think an NTSE mod should have a four day timer to respond to a submitter (assuming the above rule is set to 3 responses beyond the first post it gives a maximum of 16 days to review once the submitter has responded to the first issue post.). If the submitter has responded and the reviewer fails to respond the article should go on an automatic 3 day approval timer. If the reviewer responds within those three days on some issue or another this should be considered the last chance and if the four day timer is tripped a second time the submission should be automatically approved.
  • Unclaimed Submissions - On submission to the NTSE the article should be in a ready to approve state... thus if any NTSE mod fails to claim and review it within say.... ten days? It should be automatically approved.
Click to expand...
This is just silly. Not only does this limit input from the public severely, but it forces the NTSE to act faster and gives them a lack of tools to address something that could be missed. 10 days isn't even long. Most submissions spend a week or more in the NTSE because there's quite a bit to read and then go through (especially in your submissions).

Timers and more pressure on mods when we got @CadetNewb saying he feels pressured because of someone he can block and tell a submitter to ignore seems like the most ass-backwards way to approach the issues.
 
The problem to blocking and ignoring someone - anyone really - is that onlookers who don't understand the situation will be misinformed or otherwise get the wrong impression if I, the NTSE mod, do not address their 'concerns'. Yes, I could do that, but in the long run, it's not good for the site either, as those with 'concerns' can then easily make accusations of 'bias'. Furthering the problem would be the misinformed, who would start believing such claims if the mod/reviewer does not reply.

Having to constantly deal with the hecklers in the audience is a pain, and ignoring them is not a good option either.
 
CadetNewb said:
The problem to blocking and ignoring someone - anyone really - is that onlookers who don't understand the situation will be misinformed or otherwise get the wrong impression if I, the NTSE mod, do not address their 'concerns'. Yes, I could do that, but in the long run, it's not good for the site either, as those with 'concerns' can then easily make accusations of 'bias'. Furthering the problem would be the misinformed, who would start believing such claims if the mod/reviewer does not reply.

Having to constantly deal with the hecklers in the audience is a pain, and ignoring them is not a good option either.
Click to expand...
Those quotes aren't a healthy way to approach it. It's akin to going 'their fake concerns lol' and 'their stupid cries of bias lol'. And as assuming as it is, that is how it comes off when you quote it. Just say the words instead of make it come off that way.

As for the actual statement: I disagree that it makes things worse. What makes it worse is when someone decides to enter a thread and go "lol just hit ignore like I did" instead of just be adults and let people ignore and block at their own pace. It doesn't hinder the site at all, primarily because people know who blocks who with a simple "I have them blocked" or a PM to explain why the statements are being adhered to. This is why I've pointed to the fact you should focus on submissions, as the NTSE tag means more than no tag to new members. People get misinformed because of things like warning players or slandering someone in discussions, not because of someone being ignored not being acknowledged in a submission.

The solution isn't to "deal with the hecklers". This is why I can't see Arieg's suggestions being logical. You, as you even stated, are more worried about doing the job of someone like @Fred and moderating a player instead of just focusing on the submissions. And then there's the issues Arieg likely intended to apply to someone like, say, Ame. Who, as we know, is the one who tends to pick his things up when you don't and actually tries to discuss things that he takes as attacks. It's an assumption, but one that isn't wrong or off. People are trying to dictate with their opinions versus the facts of the already made-clear issues of:
  • People taking criticism/discussion as personal attacks (as Cora just did moments ago because I simply recited your own statement).
  • A lack of clear-cut rules and enforcement of them equally.
  • A deliberate attempt to ignore certain submissions.
The three of these things are not resolved by any of his proposed ideas, nor the idea that we need to silence people. The solutions are, again:
  • People growing up, separating personal identification from professional/submissions and quitting the snippy attack posts (even assuming I intended to insult Cadet, what was the purpose of calling me an ass-clown? What did you even contribute to the thread?)
  • A new look and layout of rules and allowing Staff like @Fred to do his job. Not carrying out personal/mob justice.
  • Ensuring the NTSE stop deliberately hindering articles by ignoring them, as has happened to Frost seemingly multiple times as-of-late. As much as Arieg has complained, I again will point out that he has got well near 30+ articles approved in the past few months. This promotes more talk of bias because he got streamlined while some articles have sat in the NTSE for a month or more in that same timespan.
I want to stay on topic, it's why I keep highlighting things said by the NTSE (including acknowledging the same issues in someone like @Ametheliana who potentially contributed by not picking articles from someone like Arieg. This isn't saying she did it intentionally, but clearly issues like this happened by accounts of Arieg) and why I keep pointing to the solutions we've already got that are extremely simple and require almost no change beyond expecting more from us as a site and community.

Edit: And I'd like to point out that I've had @Ira blocked on the forums PRECISELY because we argued the most here. This is precisely why he and I haven't fought nearly as much on here. I don't see his comments (I suppose he doesn't see mine until he clicks "show ignored") and it overall helps us get along. When we aren't typing on the forum, I've been able to have discussions and generally better interaction with him in things like the VC. The function works and immensely helped improve just one instance. Is it fixed entirely? No. But that's because of the fact I can't fully ignore him text-wise (VC wise, there hasn't been a miscommunication between us). If I could, then I'd wager the pair of us wouldn't ever really fight beyond the things like when the pair of us defend someone on opposing sides of this large argument.

Ignoring works. You just have to actually resist the temptation to undo it and start fights.
 
The thing is, even if I do place them on ignore, that doesn't necessarily mean the submitter has as well. New players are particularly prone to being intimidated by such posters, and honestly, if so many people just put someone like Frost on ignore, something is genuinely wrong. Giving an NTSE mod the ability to moderate their review threads, or even the ability to ask certain people to cease posting in a thread, would do far more good than any use of the ignore feature.
 
Additionally a little tack on, if a NTSE mod has not posted or finished a review in the ntse forum in the previous thirty days they are placed on probation. Effectively they must start and complete a review in the next two weeks. If they fail to do so they will lose their position and not be eligible for at least one year. Bare in mind this only applies to those who have not posted breaks or life events in said forum.
 
Arieg said:
Additionally a little tack on, if a NTSE mod has not posted or finished a review in the ntse forum in the previous thirty days they are placed on probation. Effectively they must start and complete a review in the next two weeks. If they fail to do so they will lose their position and not be eligible for at least one year. Bare in mind this only applies to those who have not posted breaks or life events in said forum.
Click to expand...
This is by far the best thing proposed so far, but I genuinely see this as something akin to how a few people skirted GM/FM duties recently. What's to stop someone from just doing two submissions a month and space them out to avoid doing the same amount of work as someone who is dedicated to their job? This is almost like a way to allow someone to half-ass and maintain their position, versus combat the issues that have been highlighted. It does lightly address the third one, though, by making the max someone can be forced to wait two weeks... but some things should be in the approval process for that period based on both the rate of which some fixes get made and the discussion that arises in certain submissions (such as ones outlining a history change or something that could affect multiple factions like a new high-tech entry or a new field into the setting). But it definitely is a step-up from the shorter-paced options before.
 
Arieg said:
Additionally any further comments you have about review times and favoritism should be ignored including public discussion on a thread, https://stararmy.com/roleplay-forum/index.php?threads/corporation-ken-tec.60778/ it was on the ntse for less then a few hours @Legix.
Click to expand...
Because I got something submitted fast, I'm suddenly invalidated? Are you serious?

I'm siding with you in that I want things to be sped up and not ignored. I literally highlighted it moments ago as an issue. I've seen @FrostJaeger treated in a demeaning and ignored way and have spoken on this issue more times than you have in this thread already.

My input isn't worth less because I got lucky and got things approved fast. That kind of mindset is absurd to carry and use. Especially when I support the idea of getting people to attend to articles faster (just as I supposedly did in your own words). You're trying to discredit my rationality for your extreme, precisely because I'd rather air caution instead of strip the ability for a submission to go through proper discussion and approval procedures.

Real talk on why my stuff doesn't take long? I don't try to approve things that are extreme or "out there". I keep it simple. I use plenty of communication and discuss things (such as my Warlock and Terrene) for a month or more ACTIVELY in chat. I take significant steps to ensure my article has very little issues that hinder it and it pays off in a fast procedure. But it doesn't mean I can't see the mistreatment of others (like Frost, who has had month+ wait times) or speak out fairly and without bias. On your facts, the simple fact I've had faster treatment makes my desire for a longer period (with proper time allowed to make an article approve-able coupled with it, not that "4 times to get it right" idea) screwing myself over.

Stop trying to shoot down my opinion, one that aligns very close to yours, just because I want a different solution that isn't an extreme and forces the NTSE to work within a tighter and more likely less-helpful box.

Edit: I was told that I was not allowed to speak/I should be ignored, yet Arieg has insisted I continue to post here when I asked him if he'd explain his reason why to me. I'd like to be explained, Arieg, why you insist for me to post somewhere after trying to tell me I shouldn't be listened to/should be ignored.
 
Last edited:
Okay here's a thought for you all. The NTSE mods, at least the ones who have actually posted here, are in favor of more moderation, not of the 'mystery box' thing. Don't you think that says something?

I mean really what is one benefit that the 'Mystery box' gives that you don't get by improving moderation in the NTSE? Personally I can't think of any actual benefits. Where as the improved moderation has a few. One we can keep our identity of having community review, two, we theoretically can draw from the knowledge of everyone on the site. 3 We can keep things public, so people can clearly see what's going on and NTSE can't hide their actions if they are being underhanded. That's just 3 benefits that didn't even have to think more than a minute for, I'm sure even more will show up when we get down to it.

People have gotten so afraid of criticism, whether it's constructive or not, that you're behaving as if everything anyone says that's not a reviewer is going to be negative. You're behaving in absolutes, which in any system that operates within the real world, is just plain wrong. Absolutes don't exist.

As for speeding up the NTSE, yes we need more speed there, however placing time limits and post limits is not the answer. I have seen post that need far more than the post limits that were given to be fixed. Some people rush things out, some people don't talk to any of the people they should before they submit. So while yes I don't like things taking forever int eh NTSE either, but what I'd like even less is if things get approved because time ran out but there's still things wrong with them.
 
I don't mind commenters on NTSE threads. I just don't want every ruling to end up on Wes' doorstep when the submitter or someone else doesn't like the ruling and finds a way to challenge it.

THAT is professional editing. It's give-and-take as far as it can go, then it's "I'm the editor. Do what I tell you or I'm damn well spiking this thing."

That's all I'd want. And I don't need Bob from Accounting constantly offering his scholarly opinion. He's not the reporter. He ain't the editor. He's someone who can't keep himself to his cubicle and thinks his opinion is really important.

It's not.
 
Doshii Jun said:
And I don't need Bob from Accounting constantly offering his scholarly opinion. He's not the reporter. He ain't the editor.
Click to expand...
But I'm Bob from the foundation board who has previously been the editor of several sections, is still the editor of several sections, was here through the paper's rough years and helped it become what it is, and has had more current editors show an appreciation for his help than do not.

And that's part of why reviews are public! Not every NTSE reviewer has the ability to catch everything. People with expertise shouldn't be told they are bringing a "scholarly opinion" to the table, least of all someone like me who has been around long enough to more about the lore than anyone but Wes could. If a submitter is going to attempt to change the canon for all of us then they get to listen to the criticisms of all of us.

But speaking again to the professional thing, why not just hire the people who get hated on for their review contributions? Me, Legix, Kim, Syaoran — people who everyone knows can act professional in an editing atmosphere. Like, Cadet only took his friends' subs and wasn't considered to be a good mod or person by a huge swath of the site, so I don't see the problem with trying out people who would obviously be really good review mods just because some people don't like them. Especially because you want to try out silly things like EW PRIVATE REVIEWS.

The NTSE working well starts with getting mods who behave professionally. Know what isn't professional? Quitting as an NTSE moderator and demanding that something you want happen like a literal screaming five-year-old simply because you learned that such behavior is accepted when you tried to ruin Nepleslia.

For real. Mods already get mod powers on the NTSE board. All it takes is individuals patient enough to help difficult people through the process and the authority to do so without the submitter being a scumbag about it.
 
Can I be Bob the Builder?

@raz , I don't think that you get that Cadetnewb is burnt out, and I don't find the way you've essentially scuffing your feet on him all that classy. People in position of non-authority will always whine at those that are and believe there's better ways of doing things. I won't pretend to say that Cadetnewb is the perfect NTSE moderator (because that would be me :p ) but people don't seem to get how long he's been at it.

I also don't see Cadet screaming like a 5-year old. He does have his heart a bit on his sleeve, but he's hardly the only person in here that's like that.

There are also rather extenuating factors concerning the split that happened with Nepleslia, and both sides have had their own compelling points to bring to the table. Besides, it's been a long time now, are we really still beating on that dead horse?

I think you bring about some excellent points. They just didn't need to be framed in mudslinging.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top