[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / anon ] [ rp / art ]

/fic/ - Fanfiction

The board for fanfiction review, brainstorming, critique, creation and discussion.
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags
Password (For file deletion.)

Site maintenance in progress! Posts made now may be lost.

Ponychan-MLPchan Merger >>>/site/15219

File: 1375289091510.jpg (222.44 KB, 1600x896, Daring Do another_day__s_end_b…)

The Future of /fic/ 6936

This is not another PSA asking for more TTG reviewers. I already tried that a couple months ago, and the most that happened was Minjask came out of retirement for one or two reviews. We can't a PSA every month asking for help. It just isn't going to work.

A few days ago, when I finished my review of Mare of the Mountain, I found a group that says it has "the best of the best" reviewers. I figure we can both help each other. http://www.fimfiction.net/group/197153/writers-and-reviewers-institute-for-technical-excellence.

Of the current reviewers of /fic/ we have: Minty, Roger, Golden_Vision, Writers_Block, Tactical, and me. That's six people. We clearly have a problem. If you don't count my latest review, it has been two and a half weeks since someone reviewed a story for the training grounds.

I have contacted one of the admins of WRITE and he has shown interest in my idea, since WRITE is a combination of two old reviewing groups as well. I have asked him if he would join us for a chat in the IRC. He said we could talk after Bronycon ends.

The way I see it, we could help each other out. They'd be getting the flow of rejected authors from EqD, and we'd get help lightening the load off TTG and a bunch of new faces for the IRC channel.

6937

File: 1375290773285.gif (108.17 KB, 325x217, 161413__safe_animated_image%25…)

>>6936
That could be interesting.

I've been doing my best to keep MLPChan and the new FimFic group alive, but until the latter gets its Wanderer D bump, there's really not much action to be had. I'd be fine with talking things over with another group, at least to see how they do things and how we might get involved with or learn from each other.

Writer's Block!hS9ZjLM/uE 6938

>>6936

I certainly see no reason to avoid it. If it helps bring the community closer together, I say full steam ahead.

Tactical 6942

Nopony else is wary of reviewers who are so eager to label themselves as the best of the best? Are any of them in the upper tiers of authors? How many of them even have a decent number of words on their accounts?
This post was edited by its author on .

Present!PeRFeCt9JM 6943

>>6942
Yeah, that seems kind of auto-shady.

For what it's worth, and I can't speak for anyone else, I and at least one other PR suggest a handful of fimfic groups including WRITE for fics we reject. But MLPchan and, yes, Ponychan, are still on top of the list.

B_P 6944

>>6942
> Nopony else is wary of reviewers who are so eager to label themselves as the best of the best?

You'll note that the group description reads "Our goal is to get together the best of the best". At no point do we label ourselves anything.

> Are any of them in the upper tiers of authors? How many of them even have a decent number of words on their accounts?


At least one (if we're judging "upper tier" strictly on popularity/success), and many.

6945

>>6942
>Are any of them in the upper tiers of authors? How many of them even have a decent number of words on their accounts?

I'm confused. Why are these requirements for quality reviewing?

Tactical 6946

>>6945

Because that's a lazy way for me to assess who's in a position to tell me stuff; whose opinion has weight. Not that it's my sole method of judging, naturally.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm sure I'll change my tune when it comes to working with you fellas individually, and PP's endorsement is enough to put me at ease.
This post was edited by its author on .

6947

>>6946
http://blip.tv/the-cinema-snob/beyond-the-valley-of-the-dolls-by-the-cinema-snob-6568041

I give you Roger Ebert's attempt at the art of story telling. I feel that it is sufficient proof that one does not have to be a good author to be a good reviewer.

6948

With all due respect, there's little incentive for me to make this change.

I don't really care if my queue sits empty for a long time because I can use that time to write/read instead. It's not like I'm gonna shrill up and die because I'm not reviewing things.

WRITE has a much larger barrier to entry than /fic/. Here, someone can walk into my thread, post a story, and I'll review it. Over there, someone has to have a Fimfiction account, PM the leader of this group, wait for that guy to handle the request and put it in a queue, wait for someone to claim it from the queue, and then they'll review it. I mean—we talk about here how we have a high barrier to entry, but this is just taking it to another level.

Additionally, this would invariably marry us to Friendship Is Magic fanfiction, given that it'd be on a site called Fimfiction.net which bans everything else from being posted. Maybe for some this isn't a problem, but for me, I've been slowly drifting away from it and would rather not be anchored down to it.

Maybe TG has some problems right now. But TG needs to fix those itself, rather than trying to paint them as /fic/'s problems. By the sounds of it, the TG and WRITE fulfil the same role, but not the same one as individual review threads.

6949

>>6948
Well, no. We could have the IRC as an option for story submissions. That way you wouldn't need to use fimfiction at all, except to read the group page. Though this is just an idea I had. If you guys at WRITE don't want that, I'd totally understand.

You're thinking of this kinda backwards. Remember back to the last big write off? There was a few people who complained because they associated us with 4chan. Part of why I suggested this was because of the people who don't like the stigma image-boards carry.

I dunno, maybe we should just close up TTG. I'm just now realizing how bad my timing is on suggesting this, since I'm currently in the middle of doing private reviews for Garnot. I don't know how long those will take as I would assume that he'll have another story for me to go over once I'm done with the one I'm currently on.

6950

>>6949
> Well, no. We could have the IRC as an option for story submissions. That way you wouldn't need to use fimfiction at all, except to read the group page.

Except then the barrier to entry is figuring out how to use IRC, which is still worse than the current situation. Really, IRC is completely inadequate for both the informed and the uninformed when it comes to handling review requests.

> You're thinking of this kinda backwards. Remember back to the last big write off? There was a few people who complained because they associated us with 4chan. Part of why I suggested this was because of the people who don't like the stigma image-boards carry.


And I say good riddance. I don't feel at all compelled to interact with people who make a habit of stereotyping anyway.

> I dunno, maybe we should just close up TTG.


Perhaps, but that is not for me to decide. Note that doing so is very different from moving /fic/ entirely. /fic/ is more than just review threads, and the TG is not the only review thread in town.

If you and the other TTG maintainers feel like joining WRITE, then by all means do so. I can put a link to it in the sticky. The two groups could serve as a distinction between open reviewing and individual reviews. People who simply want to get a review from anyone can go to WRITE, and people who want to get a review from a particular person can come to their thread in here.

I would warn you that in doing so you are downgrading your architecture. The various scripts and organisation materials in the TG spreadsheet do a lot of work in reducing the managerial load, and WRITE currently has no such architecture. The review requests are just private messages. What happens when Csquared08 needs to go away for some time? Can he forward messages to other people? Fimfiction has no such functionality. There is less reviewer autonomy for absolutely no benefit.

You're essentially going to re-encounter and then have to re-solve a whole bunch of problems that Demetrius already did so 2 years ago. Of course, I'm sure there is not much difficulty in copying the TG spreadsheet/forms and utilising it for WRITE's purposes.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that review requests being mere private messages sent to one person is a terribly fickle system.

Also, I don't like the emphasis on "technical excellence" in the title, but that's just me.

Hmm. On reading it some more, I'm feeling like this is an even worse idea than I did before. They have a "code of conduct" for reviewers. You have to apply to be a reviewer. They have "approved" reviewers. Everything basically has to go through to few head honchos of the operation. The whole thing just reeks of bureaucratic and self-congratulatory nonsense. I could be wrong, of course, but to be honest I'm quite fond of our anarchistic ways of working with things here.

But hey, like I said, this is really my decision to make. I'll be staying here anyway.

B_P 6951

>>6950
It's worth noting that admins in WRITE assign stories to members based on preferences. It isn't some random thing where we have to wait for members to accept, except in the case of stories that are terrible or inaccessible enough that multiple members have turned the assignment down. In those cases, we take it to the Skype chat and ask if someone's willing to take it. Oftentimes, they are, but if they aren't, it goes instead to one of the admins. But these cases are rare, mind.

> People who simply want to get a review from anyone can go to WRITE, and people who want to get a review from a particular person can come to their thread in here.


We make it explicitly clear that anyone looking for a review can request that a specific member be the one to write it. If that happens, it just comes down to availability.

> The various scripts and organisation materials in the TG spreadsheet do a lot of work in reducing the managerial load, and WRITE currently has no such architecture.


I'm not sure where you're getting your information on our architecture, but we do indeed have a spreadsheet. The "managerial load" pretty much comes down to assigning stories and reviewing applicants. Everything almost runs itself.

> The review requests are just private messages. What happens when Csquared08 needs to go away for some time? Can he forward messages to other people? Fimfiction has no such functionality.


That is, admittedly, one of the larger issues with the group. C's college occasionally drops his internet for a few days, and it sometimes results in a small backlog. Nothing that can't be handled, but yes, it's an increase in wait time for a review. We're currently looking into workarounds.

> Also, I don't like the emphasis on "technical excellence" in the title, but that's just me.


Many liked the acronym. I didn't vote for that title, myself.

> They have a "code of conduct" for reviewers.


In the OP, where it says WRITE started as an amalgam of two other reviewing groups? One of them was shut down due to poor conduct. We're not looking to have that happen again.

> You have to apply to be a reviewer. They have "approved" reviewers. Everything basically has to go through to few head honchos of the operation.


I think you might be reaching a bit far for things to not like, personally. If everyone who had ever applied to WRITE had been let in, half of the group or more would be people who are horribly insulting, condescending, inactive, or inexperienced. If someone's moderately polite (or, at least, not directly insulting to authors) and actually has a pretty good idea of what they're doing, they tend to get in.

6952

>>6951
> In the OP, where it says WRITE started as an amalgam of two other reviewing groups? One of them was shut down due to poor conduct. We're not looking to have that happen again.
TWE was shut down because harassing others was a systematic problem within the group and facilitated by the people in charge. You don't need to turn your group into an ivory tower to avoid that.

> If everyone who had ever applied to WRITE had been let in, half of the group or more would be people who are horribly insulting, condescending, inactive, or inexperienced.

You seem to assume a lot about people that you don't even know.

> I think you might be reaching a bit far for things to not like, personally.

It's mainly that this represents a very differing philosophy between the two places. The TG was built with the principle of least privilege in mind. That is, the privilege required to do a task is only so high as it is necessary for that task to be completed. An author need only know how to submit their story into the queue to receive a review. A reviewer need only claim a story to review it. A maintainer can be anyone willing to do the job. There is no leader because a leader is not required. There is no admin because an admin is not required. There are no approved reviewers because approved reviewers are not required. WRITE assigns privilege to actors to do things that could be performed by persons with fewer privileges.

The system you describe seems inferior to the TG when it comes to both throughput and reviewer autonomy. I don't see any benefit to it short of Azu's infatuation with moving to Fimfiction. What reason do WRITE reviewers have not to come and review stories from the TG queue? Does the lack of an "approved reviewer" title not tickle your egos enough?

I was of the impression that a move to Fimfiction was to make the TG more approachable, not to further isolate it from the "undesirables".

B_P 6953

>>6952
> TWE was shut down because harassing others was a systematic problem within the group and facilitated by the people in charge. You don't need to turn your group into an ivory tower to avoid that.

That's an odd way of looking at it… Group moderation on FiMFiction was nigh impossible in those days. Banning wasn't even a working function. And to ask people not to directly attack authors hardly seems unreasonable. Less "ivory tower" and more "average office building", from my perspective.

> You seem to assume a lot about people that you don't even know.


No, we go over their applications. The application exam includes general knowledge questions, a mechanics segment, and a free review. We're well able to get a sense of both their capabilities and their mannerisms before we accept them or turn them down.

> What reason do WRITE reviewers have not to come and review stories from the TG queue? Does the lack of an "approved reviewer" title not tickle your egos enough?

> I was of the impression that a move to Fimfiction was to make the TG more approachable, not to further isolate it from the "undesirables".

It's been clear from the start that you'd made up your mind, and I'm fine with that. Nobody's forcing you to come to FiMFiction, and this isn't even something we've asked of you. However, the insults aren't necessary. This impression you have of our group as some elitist regime just isn't true to reality, and it's pretty offensive to boot.

Professor!!50T+4p9WGl 6954

Just popping my head in here to correct a few mistakes.

>>6952
>TWE was shut down because harassing others was a systematic problem within the group and facilitated by the people in charge.
Some people in the TWE went around harassing people, this is true, but it was by no means endorsed by the people in charge. Speaking as one of those people, we desperately wanted some way of shutting that shit down, but it just wasn't there. As BP said, fimfic group admins had practically no power, even lacking the ability to ban someone from said group, and the site admins/mods don't ban people for claiming they represent a group they actually don't.

>You seem to assume a lot about people that you don't even know.

Uh, we kinda do.
The whole point of the exam is to get to know the applicants and how they handle things. Yes, that includes how good they are at fixing syntax problems, but we also get a glimpse of their way of reviewing.

Some of these methods were… troubling, to say the least.

It's not a perfect system, sure, as we've had to remove one or two people for simply not doing anything, but it cuts out a lot of the crap. I'd rather find out someone's a shit reviewer /before/ I ask them to help someone.

Alrighty, back to wrestling with my internet connection once more
Toodles

Professor!PlumUCPrQA 6955

>>6954
Whoops, borked my trip right there. Ignore that.

6956

>>6952
>I don't see any benefit to it short of Azu's infatuation with moving to Fimfiction.
It isn't about Fimfiction. I'd suggest moving to /lit/ if I thought that would be better for the community.

Tactical 6959

I'm this close to saying "fuck the community, /fic/ is dead but at least we have each other"

I would love to start hanging with WRITE, but I have no interest in paying any dues in the form of being obliged to do reviews, so I don't think I'll be properly joining the group.

On that note, sure would be cool to see you guys hanging out in the IRC and on this board!

6960

>>6953
> And to ask people not to directly attack authors hardly seems unreasonable. Less "ivory tower" and more "average office building", from my perspective.
Your code of conduct concerns itself with more than just "don't be a dick". There are 14 rules in your code of conduct. 6 of them apply to reviewers. Of these, 3 rules are concerned with the group itself rather than actual etiquette. Of the other 3, they could be summarised to "don't be a dick" and "be professional".

I think the following is demonstrative of my concern:

> You will not leave unsolicited reviews on a story with our name or logo on them. Leaving your opinions is fine, as long as you don’t associate yourself officially.


This rule is only concerned about preservation of the group. In effect, it says, "It's okay to be a dick. Just don't damage our reputation while you do it." I would rather reviewers simply not be dicks at all.

Also, I find the distinction between "reviews" and "opinions" rather comical, as if a review is anything more than an opinion.

Maybe these rules that are only about the group's self-preservation will indirectly help authors. My interpretation of them is that this group insists upon itself too much.

> This impression you have of our group as some elitist regime just isn't true to reality, and it's pretty offensive to boot.


I mean no disrespect. You seem like a group of smart and composed people that I'd probably enjoy hanging out with. I'm simply subjecting your group to criticism as you would an author's story so that people can make a more informed decision.

You have yet to answer the question, though: What reason do WRITE reviewers have not to come and review stories from the TG queue?

>>6954
> Some people in the TWE went around harassing people, this is true, but it was by no means endorsed by the people in charge. Speaking as one of those people, we desperately wanted some way of shutting that shit down, but it just wasn't there.

I find that hard to believe, given that we've never had that problem in an arguably much more toxic environment. This discussion has already been had elsewhere numerous times over, so I don't think it's worth repeating.

> The whole point of the exam is to get to know the applicants and how they handle things. Yes, that includes how good they are at fixing syntax problems, but we also get a glimpse of their way of reviewing.


Without a transparent application process, there's really no way for me to compare my own judgments in this regard to your own. When over half your applicants were judged as "horribly insulting, condescending, inactive, or inexperienced", I can't help but wonder if your application process is overly judgmental.

B_P 6961

>>6960
> Your code of conduct concerns itself with more than just "don't be a dick".

Suppose I was just responding to you talking about how the TWE were being dicks.

> This rule is only concerned about preservation of the group. In effect, it says, "It's okay to be a dick. Just don't damage our reputation while you do it." I would rather reviewers simply not be dicks at all.


That's actually there to do exactly what it says. Unsolicited reviews were another of the things the TWE was cited with having done wrong. Note that solicitation only amounts to the author saying something like "tell me what you think" in the A/N, or somesuch. Or, we encourage, just asking the guy/gal if it's alright to do one.

> Also, I find the distinction between "reviews" and "opinions" rather comical, as if a review is anything more than an opinion.


Good point; it probably shouldn't be worded quite that way.

> Maybe these rules that are only about the group's self-preservation will indirectly help authors. My interpretation of them is that this group insists upon itself too much.


I can understand the perspective, but hell, we /like/ being around. All of the founders went through groups they cared about falling through, and it just sucks. If I'm going to be putting so many of my eggs in a basket, I'd prefer the basket to be shock-proof.

> What reason do WRITE reviewers have not to come and review stories from the TG queue?


I don't know, really. I can only speak for myself, and in my case, it's only because I've never considered the possibility. Why should it have to be anything more? It certainly wouldn't be any sort of group policy or somesuch.

> Without a transparent application process, there's really no way for me to compare my own judgments in this regard to your own. When over half your applicants were judged as "horribly insulting, condescending, inactive, or inexperienced", I can't help but wonder if your application process is overly judgmental.


Sorry, but I'd have to ask you to either try it yourself or trust us. It wouldn't sit too well with me, making public the failings that some of the applicants have had. I'm happy sticking to general stuff (though I suppose you'd still have to trust us on it), such as that more often than not, if a person fails, it's just for being inexperienced. Often that their mechanical skills are poor, to the point that either they're not expressing themselves well or they're outright offering false advice on mechanics.

Other times that the "inexperienced" thing comes into play, we tend to fail people if they're talking about concepts (like LUS, or the like) without actually explaining what is or isn't good about them (i.e. they're not actually being at all helpful, or they aren't showing that they fully understand what they themselves are talking about—trying to BS their way through with terms they heard earlier in the exam or just around).

Most common after inexperience is probably the insulting ones, which sort of goes hand in hand with the condescension. Applicants might, in their free review, tell the theoretical author that they're terrible at writing, or any such down-putting thing that doesn't actually go towards helping someone be better—there's blunt and harsh, but then there's out-and-out fruitlessly mean. The latter gets dropped.

And with the last common one, inactivity, that's when someone just never gets back to us with their application completed. We tell everyone they have unlimited time, but after a month or two, it just gets pretty hard to have faith in a person's commitment.

And on that note, >>6959
We've got Skype groups and such that are open to just about anybody, whether or not they're at all associated with the group. You're welcome to hang around in one or more of those. And with the IRC, I'm willing to give that a try, and I'd imagine others would be as well.
This post was edited by its author on .

Tactical 6962

Between the impulse to take the exam just to see, and my knee-jerk displeasure with rules like "no unsolicited reviews," and my growing disillusionment with the idea of organized peer editing, I think I vote to just leave well enough alone.

B_P 6963

>>6961
> or any such down-putting thing that does actually go towards helping someone be better

*doesn't

Very tired when I wrote this.

Anonymous 6964

File: 1375440930312.gif (177.52 KB, 390x254, apple bloom fix.gif)

>>6963

There's an edit box at the bottom-right of the page. Just check the box at the top-left of your post and press that. It should work.

B_P 6965

>>6964
Ah, danke schön.

Tactical 6966

Hey for real though, would you put me through the test, just so we can see?

I think the results would be enlightening, right? Not just for my ego, but because seeing what the requirements really are would be good.

And anyway, less "ego" and more just comparing and contrasting what I do vs what you do.

B_P 6968

>>6966

Alrighty. Just shoot me a PM on FiMFic and I'll get it set up for you. Once I'm back at my apartment from Bronycon, anyway.

6974

>>6961
> Unsolicited reviews were another of the things the TWE was cited with having done wrong.
It's really the wording that's bothersome. While I understand why it is written that way, you also have to understand how I got to that interpretation. Whether or not a review is official or solicited is irrelevant. If someone is being nasty, that's not okay.

I think you're taking the criticism against TWE too heavily and it's becoming unnecessary baggage for WRITE. You have 3 rules that are only trying to ensure that nobody thinks this is TWE 2.0.

Your rules should instead emphasise that, as a reviewer, your job is to help the author. Too often writers critiquing other writers take the opportunity to flour their own ego at the cost of actually being helpful, and I think that was the primary issue with TWE. People were in it for the fun of it. Unsolicited reviews weren't the problem so much as those reviews being unnecessarily scathing and unhelpful.

That said, I would still suggesting keeping only to solicited reviews, if only to save yourselves the trouble of giving feedback to someone who doesn't want any. But this isn't so much a rule as it is a smart way of doing things in the reviewing world.

You can avoid being TWE 2.0 by simply leading by example. People are awfully conformant and act wildly differently depending on their environment. If people don't understand good reviewer ethics and enter your environment, then they find themselves in the wrong place and either leave or change themselves to suit the environment.

Actually banning people or using fixed rules should only be a last resort to enforcing these kinds of guidelines. For the most part, the community can enforce etiquette themselves through the use of social powers: "Wow, you're an arsehole, Greg. Why would you go and do that…" With the same sentiment expressed by everyone in the community, Greg is going to either conform or leave.

If instead Greg gets a bunch of snickers from their colleagues about how awful that story he just trashed is, he's going to think what he did is okay. I've witnessed this a few times with the TG, and each time it only took me standing up and saying, "Hey, you guys are being arseholes," to get the situation resolved.

> I can understand the perspective, but hell, we /like/ being around. All of the founders went through groups they cared about falling through, and it just sucks. If I'm going to be putting so many of my eggs in a basket, I'd prefer the basket to be shock-proof.


I seriously, seriously doubt that your group is going to go anywhere, short of me entirely miscalculating how toxic Fimfiction's environment is.

> I don't know, really. I can only speak for myself, and in my case, it's only because I've never considered the possibility. Why should it have to be anything more? It certainly wouldn't be any sort of group policy or somesuch.


Fair enough.

> It wouldn't sit too well with me, making public the failings that some of the applicants have had.


Couldn't you just blur out the names? Make a thread on your group called "Filed Applications" and each post is something along the lines of:

> ID: 1

> Status: Rejected
> Reason: …

It's not that I don't trust you. It's that we may be on different pages when it comes to what constitutes a "good" reviewer.

> [T]hey're outright offering false advice on mechanics.


I find that there's a necessary distinction between "critique" and "editing". The way I see it, you want the former for your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and nth draft, and the latter only for your last. There's no point editing something if it may well get rewritten anyway.

I bring this up because mechanics are only important for editing. While you could disqualify someone from being an editor based on these criteria, you can't really say that their critique would be unhelpful.

> I'm willing to give [IRC] a try, and I'd imagine others would be as well.


The channel is #fic on irc.canternet.org. If you aren't familiar with IRC clients, I'd suggest you use Mibbit (http://chat.mibbit.com). Click on the "server" button and put "irc.canternet.org" in the server field, "#fic" in the channel field, and your nickname in the nick field.
This post was edited by its author on .

B_P 6976

>>6974
> While I understand why it is written that way, you also have to understand how I got to that interpretation.

To be perfectly honest, I don't believe I actually do. The rule makes no mention of conduct beyond creating an unsolicited review being a conduct issue in and of itself. "Being a dick" doesn't necessarily enter into that.

> Your rules should instead emphasise that, as a reviewer, your job is to help the author. Too often writers critiquing other writers take the opportunity to flour their own ego at the cost of actually being helpful, and I think that was the primary issue with TWE.

> That said, I would still suggesting keeping only to solicited reviews, if only to save yourselves the trouble of giving feedback to someone who doesn't want any. But this isn't so much a rule as it is a smart way of doing things in the reviewing world.

I'm actually becoming confused. You would have us remove rules that are there to prevent incidents that could get the group in trouble, but you would also have us instate rules that attempt only to steer people towards doing what is basic for reviewing in general? The rules aren't there to make sure the reviews themselves are up to snuff—that's what our application exam, training options, and general reviewer feedback are all about. The rules are there to prevent problems for the group and its members.

> I seriously, seriously doubt that your group is going to go anywhere, short of me entirely miscalculating how toxic Fimfiction's environment is.


Personally, I think you might be, at least to some degree. That's how it sounds, at any rate. Not everything is sunshine and fairness over there.

> Couldn't you just blur out the names? Make a thread on your group called "Filed Applications" and each post is something along the lines of: […]


I think something like that might discourage application. If more people than just you express an interest in having some sort of application review transparency system, though, it might enter into consideration.

> I bring this up because mechanics are only important for editing. While you could disqualify someone from being an editor based on these criteria, you can't really say that their critique would be unhelpful.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with explaining how to fix consistently found mechanical errors within a review. And if a reviewer chooses to do so, but does so incorrectly, that's a problem. "Unhelpful" is too neutral a term, as I would classify providing false information as "harmful".

6977

>>6976
>If more people than just you express an interest in having some sort of application review transparency system, though, it might enter into consideration.
I'm interested. ^^

TheNumber25!PcMsh3kU2s 6979

>>6976
>I think something like that might discourage application. If more people than just you express an interest in having some sort of application review transparency system, though, it might enter into consideration.

I would also like to see examples of the process—if only out of curiosity.

I'm not sure how it could discourage application. I would be more comfortable going into something where I know how I would be judged. If somebody is discouraged because of the standards enforced or the system in place, then there's a high chance that you wouldn't have wanted that person with you anyways.

6980

File: 1375790366471.gif (1.98 MB, 295x216, 274550__safe_animated_human_im…)

>>6979
I'd be interested in seeing it. To be honest, that's one of the problems I have with the PR application process—you just kind of put stuff in and hope for the best. If you've got a chance to show potential applicants exactly how they will be measured, and who they will be measured against, I'd say that's a great idea.

B_P 6983

>>6974
Looking back at Roger's post, at the example system he gave, I'm actually thinking I misinterpreted. If all he's looking for is an accepted/rejected status and reasons why, that actually sounds perfectly fine to me. I'd been getting the impression that I was being asked to essentially show a person's entire application apart from their name.

If all that's being asked for is status and reasons, though, how would that serve as a transparency system? You'd still be taking our word for things…

Tactical 6984

I actively *want* my application to be posted here so that people can see. That was the whole point pretty much–seeing what it's like. Would that be okay?

B_P 6985

>>6984
Certainly. Its the applicants' privacy I'm worried about, but if you want to share your own application, that's no issue.

6986

File: 1375898855904.gif (706.35 KB, 600x180, 261034__safe_animated_shining%…)

>>6985
Perhaps mine could be posted, too (I'm nearly finished)? I'd like it if you could put our two applications up, side by side, along with a post/explanation for your resulting decision and/or thoughts. That we, we get a clear idea of your thought process :)

ADDENDUM: Furthermore, since the application as well as the decision will be public, there should be no bias or pressure in conforming to public opinion; I'd like to think that all of us at /fic/ are well-educated enough to know what a good and bad application, respectively, would look like.
This post was edited by its author on .

B_P 6987

>>6986
That'd be fine. I'll get on that right after the team's covered yours.

6988

File: 1375909804843.gif (144.6 KB, 500x375, 219245__safe_fluttershy_discor…)

Annnnnnnnd I'm done. Feel free to put it up/let me and everyone know what you think whenever.

Tactical 6989

Same here. Please post my application (and the subsequent PMs between us if there isn't a problem there) as a bad example to hold up against GV’s good one :)

6999

File: 1376075094529.gif (67.05 KB, 200x256, 335696__safe_solo_derpy%252Bho…)

Welp, here's my thingymabobber. Have some copypaste.

Application: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mvxe9Qs8TcDFKWn5BC7pF24Odv4nwhqK51emx-QAkGw/edit (viewing and comments should be enabled).

PM Response: http://pastebin.com/bsUQZayr

Share & Enjoy

Tactical 7000

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z1U5lhOeOrjwKXDwuw2N3sz91GFZ8tbsXayQL9B358c/edit?usp=docslist_api

I was rejected. There were a few reasons, but I think I can sum them up quite briefly.

One: I went in wanting to show off my writerpenis, and I figured arrogance was an okay tone for giving my opinions, which led me to give non-answers to the questions.

Two: I do NOT have the patience to review something to WRITE's standards when it looks like the sample trollfic.

B_P 7001

For posterity, the PM chain between Tactical and myself: http://pastebin.com/w0BJVean

7004

File: 1376118579613.jpg (7.09 KB, 320x240, _7h.jpg)

>>6976
> The rule makes no mention of conduct beyond creating an unsolicited review being a conduct issue in and of itself. "Being a dick" doesn't necessarily enter into that.

Well, why not? If someone, for example, goes around flaming authors in the same way that some TWE members did, they should be reprimanded regardless of if it's in a review or not. That was the actual issue TWE had, not unsolicited reviews. Those were a symptom of the bigger problem whereby there was a group of people who were doing things only for their own ego.

> You would have us remove rules that are there to prevent incidents that could get the group in trouble, but you would also have us instate rules that attempt only to steer people towards doing what is basic for reviewing in general?


It would be an unwritten rule—something that doesn't strictly need to be enforced. As I said earlier, it's a symptom of a much larger problem. People with proper tact will know what is and isn't acceptable in an unsolicited review versus a solicited one.

To be more clear here, what I'm saying is that TWE had one big problem: that it had a good number of assholes in it. What followed from this problem is that unsolicited reviews became a problem. But without that first big problem, the second problem isn't a problem anymore. The whole "approved reviewer" thing already solves the first big problem, so you don't need to worry about the second one anymore.

> There is absolutely nothing wrong with explaining how to fix consistently found mechanical errors within a review.


Of course not… Did I say that? I just see the two tasks as being almost entirely separate. We've taken the verb "review" and made it mean both "critique" and "edit": two similar but distinct tasks. Many people waste their time editing something that ought to be rewritten entirely. Similarly, they waste their time critiquing something that the author only plans to make edits for. I think it optimises a reviewer's time considerably to separate these tasks so that the author can communicate which one he/she actually wants.

So, for your exam, say someone scores poorly in the mechanics section but does well with everything else, you could make them an approved critic, but not an approved editor. They could accept reviews asking for critique, but not those asking for editing. Vice versa for people with good mechanics but poor critique skills.

>>6983
I would actually like to see the full applications, just with no name attached. You could make it opt-out, I guess. I don't really think most people care. When it comes to privacy, as long as you let people know and have control over what is being disclosed, then it's all good.

B_P 7005

>>7004
> Well, why not? If someone, for example, goes around flaming authors in the same way that some TWE members did, they should be reprimanded regardless of if it's in a review or not.

…But what does that have to do with that particular rule? You are genuinely confusing me. You started off talking about that rule as though the wording implied it somehow gave every member free reign to go be an asshole when they're off the clock, when it doesn't touch on a reviewer's attitude at all. Like I said, and as it clearly states, that rule is just about solicitation—making sure a reviewer has permission to do a review in our name before actually doing it and possibly getting in trouble with someone (moderation/the author/WRITE itself, maybe). We have other rules that do touch on attitude; I don't understand the problem with this one.

> People with proper tact will know what is and isn't acceptable in an unsolicited review versus a solicited one.


WRITE, as a group, doesn't do unsolicited reviews, so what is and isn't acceptable in them is moot.

> To be more clear here, what I'm saying is that TWE had one big problem: that it had a good number of assholes in it. What followed from this problem is that unsolicited reviews became a problem. But without that first big problem, the second problem isn't a problem anymore. The whole "approved reviewer" thing already solves the first big problem, so you don't need to worry about the second one anymore.


I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. You accept that that our approval process weeds out jerks, but not that it weeds out people who are explicitly poor at reviewing? Because it's there to do both. And like I said before, the rules are there to keep people out of trouble. The group and its members aren't going to get in trouble for a review that isn't up to our usual standards. They will get in trouble if they start insulting authors, or if they give a review to someone who happens not to want it. What possible problem is there with making sure our members are fully aware of what will likely land them in hot water? What kind of group would willfully do otherwise?

> Of course not… Did I say that?


Essentially, yes. When you say that mechanical ability is only useful for editing, you say that it isn't necessary for things like that.

> So, for your exam, say someone scores poorly in the mechanics section but does well with everything else, you could make them an approved critic, but not an approved editor. They could accept reviews asking for critique, but not those asking for editing. Vice versa for people with good mechanics but poor critique skills.


We do, in fact, do this, excepting the bit where we call them something other than "reviewer". Each member is rated for ability to cover mechanics, characterization/dialogue, and plot/storycraft based upon what we've observed of them and their own input after acceptance. That factors into assignments they get when the requesters actually care to specify what they need help with.

A misconception you seem to have is that someone would be turned down simply for a below average mechanics score, regardless of their performance in other areas of the exam. Like I'd told you before, if people are turned down for poor mechanical ability, it's likely either because they're offering false information or because they outright can't express themselves clearly. That's not dependent on the score they got in the mechanics portion, or vice versa. The mechanics portion itself is arguably the least impactful segment of the exam.
This post was edited by its author on .

7006

>>7005
> You are genuinely confusing me.

I'm trying to argue that your code of conduct could do with revision because the current one has some issues. (It's also absurdly verbose, but that's another thing.)

> WRITE, as a group, doesn't do unsolicited reviews, so what is and isn't acceptable in them is moot.


Is this another way of saying, "We don't care what happens in an unsolicited review because we've decided it isn't our problem anymore"? Because that's kind of the whole issue I have with this rule. Its only purpose is to absolve your group of responsibility.

> You accept that that our approval process weeds out jerks, but not that it weeds out people who are explicitly poor at reviewing?


I don't think I made any comment regarding that, given that I'd never even seen what the process consisted of (hence the request for more public disclosure, so I *could* make such a value judgement).

> When you say that mechanical ability is only useful for editing, you say that it isn't necessary for things like that.


I don't know how "Mechanical skills are only necessary for editing" translates into "There is something wrong with explaining how to fix consistently found mechanical errors within a review."

> That factors into assignments they get when the requesters actually care to specify what they need help with.


Problem with free-form input fields is that you don't get very actionable answers. I really think the distinction between critique and editing is important enough that the person requesting a review must choose between one or the other. Otherwise, people will almost always take the general but inefficient double-purpose reviews.

The distinction between characterisation/dialogue/plot/storycraft/etc. is kind of unimportant for reviewing purposes because those things are not really dependent on the story's developmental stage but just specific strengths/weaknesses of the author.
This post was edited by its author on .

B_P 7008

>>7006
> I'm trying to argue that your code of conduct could do with revision because the current one has some issues.

Yes, but I'm just having a lot of trouble following your arguments, as you'll start off arguing one thing about one rule, then—it looks like, but I'm not entirely sure—shift to arguing about other ones, or all of them, without telling me. We've got, like, 3–5 separate arguments going here, and when you bleed them together, it's just a mess.

> Is this another way of saying, "We don't care what happens in an unsolicited review because we've decided it isn't our problem anymore"? Because that's kind of the whole issue I have with this rule. Its only purpose is to absolve your group of responsibility.


No, it's my way of saying "WRITE doesn't do unsolicited reviews, so why are we talking about them?" On FiMFic, members are very much seen as separate from their groups (generally because any person can be in almost any group, I'm assuming), so when a group is punished and/or banned, nothing actually tends to happen to its individual members. But groups only get punished and/or banned if its members are doing negative things and it looks to the mods (or sometimes just knighty, specifically) like the group is endorsing it. Giving a review to a person who didn't at all ask for it and doesn't want it is negative, so we make it clear that we don't endorse it.

> I don't think I made any comment regarding that, given that I'd never even seen what the process consisted of (hence the request for more public disclosure, so I *could* make such a value judgement).


You could look up there at GV's and Tactical's applications. Or hell, if anyone had ever just asked to see the application itself, we'd've shown it. Everyone's always asked to see someone's application, though, or the process in action. We wouldn't care at all if the application itself is made public, as a person taking it is encouraged to use any resources at their disposal—the entirety of the internet—anyway.

> I don't know how "Mechanical skills are only necessary for editing" translates into "There is something wrong with explaining how to fix consistently found mechanical errors within a review."


Saying "Mechanical skills are only necessary for editing" felt to me like "Mechanical skills do little for a reviewer."

> Problem with free-form input fields is that you don't get very actionable answers.


Speaking as a person who runs WRITE and was a big part of SALT—both of which used free-form input fields—I'm able to say that you're wrong in saying that.

> I really think the distinction between critique and editing is important enough that the person requesting a review must choose between one or the other.


I'm not entirely sure where editing entered this equation, as that's not a service WRITE currently offers (we've not got that mentoring thing up yet, if that's what you've been talking about). We only offer reviews, and every reviewer has free reign to cover whatever problems they feel need to be covered in whatever story they have assigned to them.


Delete Post [ ]
Edit Post
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / anon ] [ rp / art ]