- Submission URL
- https://stararmy.com/wiki/doku.php?id=guide:submission_rules
- Submission Faction(s)
- None (nebulas, etc.)
- Submission Terms
- I agree
For Reviewers:
-
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
Abandoned Submission [Rules] Submission Rules Update #3
- Thread starter FrostJaeger
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ntse rules submission update
I was talking with Meta earlier, and we had come up with a "three post review" system in regards to submitters and reviewers. To summarize:
The first post a reviewer has in a thread should be the initial review+checklist. More or less, this is unchanged.
The second post that same reviewer posts in the thread should be for any secondary changes that might have been missed during the initial review, or problems that may have been caused by corrections that hadn't come in response to the reviewer's first post (this is pretty common practice amongst reviewers, to have "follow up" posts).
The third time a reviewer posts in a submissions thread, they have a verdict ready - the submission in question is rejected or approved, and if there are any additional changes needed (usually, this applies to a rejected article), those changes should be stated in the rejection.
This system would, in my eyes, keep the NTSE moving on an exterior perspective (since a review cannot go on for very long with this system, the reviewers can handle multiple submissions more reliably and efficiently); a consistent threshold for where an article is deemed approved or rejected significantly reduces the likelihood of drawn-out arguments that can demotivate both the submitter and reviewer (after all, the submitter can try again with a rejected article after improving it - we have a resubmission process!), and also prevents the submissions process from getting "bogged down" by a single, controversial article.
Some things about this idea are kind of placeholders - for example, the amount of posts before the verdict can be extended, or reduced if necessary. I do believe that there should still be an ultimate limit, though, to prevent massive lengthy arguments from causing drama and slowing the NTSE down.
EDIT: I thought of a few more advantages and the like:
-An advantage of this system is that it makes the NTSE Reviewal process more transparent, easier to understand, and (in the case of a "bad mod") significantly easier to moderate. A limit of three posts before a verdict means that it is easier to see what the identified problems of an article are, since those problems would be identified in groups instead of individual, bloat-causing posts.
-This system seems like it could be easy to abuse as a reviewer: you post a checklist, then some miniature trash post, then a rejection post. This is countered rather easily by the advantage I just identified, though: with only three posts, it's extremely obvious when an NTSE moderator is trying to remove a submission they don't like as opposed to giving an honest and fair review.
The first post a reviewer has in a thread should be the initial review+checklist. More or less, this is unchanged.
The second post that same reviewer posts in the thread should be for any secondary changes that might have been missed during the initial review, or problems that may have been caused by corrections that hadn't come in response to the reviewer's first post (this is pretty common practice amongst reviewers, to have "follow up" posts).
The third time a reviewer posts in a submissions thread, they have a verdict ready - the submission in question is rejected or approved, and if there are any additional changes needed (usually, this applies to a rejected article), those changes should be stated in the rejection.
This system would, in my eyes, keep the NTSE moving on an exterior perspective (since a review cannot go on for very long with this system, the reviewers can handle multiple submissions more reliably and efficiently); a consistent threshold for where an article is deemed approved or rejected significantly reduces the likelihood of drawn-out arguments that can demotivate both the submitter and reviewer (after all, the submitter can try again with a rejected article after improving it - we have a resubmission process!), and also prevents the submissions process from getting "bogged down" by a single, controversial article.
Some things about this idea are kind of placeholders - for example, the amount of posts before the verdict can be extended, or reduced if necessary. I do believe that there should still be an ultimate limit, though, to prevent massive lengthy arguments from causing drama and slowing the NTSE down.
EDIT: I thought of a few more advantages and the like:
-An advantage of this system is that it makes the NTSE Reviewal process more transparent, easier to understand, and (in the case of a "bad mod") significantly easier to moderate. A limit of three posts before a verdict means that it is easier to see what the identified problems of an article are, since those problems would be identified in groups instead of individual, bloat-causing posts.
-This system seems like it could be easy to abuse as a reviewer: you post a checklist, then some miniature trash post, then a rejection post. This is countered rather easily by the advantage I just identified, though: with only three posts, it's extremely obvious when an NTSE moderator is trying to remove a submission they don't like as opposed to giving an honest and fair review.
Last edited:
