GUVD System Process Problems

[Ranger]

Howdy all! Given that we're in the testing phase at this point, I think I can finally divorce from the Community Feedback Survey thread and dedicate a new thread to future issues with the system's process.

 

---

 

In this case, I realized a situation I either forgot about or didn't consider- if a staff member reports the problem. I honestly don't know if it would be worth singling them out of the review process because the most obvious loophole would be they just ask another staff member to do it so they could review. Plus, if a staff member reports it, odds are good the staff is naturally biased anyway. Since the staff is likely biased, I don't know if tacking on an extra staff member would be the optimal solution.

 

I'm wondering if a normal member could volunteer, but then again that person may be biased to help the OP or biased against the OP. My concern there is a biased community member may be more likely to create the review they want rather than the review they should make. While staff members could also make "nefarious" reviews, I think it would be less likely for a staff member to undermine the process (while we're talking about bias lol). However, even a totally honest review can still be very biased, so assuming everyone is acting in good faith doesn't mean this problem won't happen.

 

Here's what I'm thinking as a solution:

 

• If a staff member reports the problem, any community members at any point prior to the final decision are free to volunteer to review the guide.
• A member must make it clear they're doing a review and follow the RRS Staff Review Guidelines in order to guarantee acknowledgement.
• While member reviews don't count towards disapproval, staff members must acknowledge their reviews. This can happen during the staff member's initial review or after.
• If something doesn't make sense, anyone can point it out and the discussion can continue.
• Once everyone's argument has been acknowledged, the staff can make a final decision.

 

During this process, it may become pretty obvious if any given individual is acting in bad faith or not. While this system does assume that staff members are interested in upholding their credibility, I think the more important issue is all of the viewpoints about a guide are acknowledged rather than fear of a "nefarious" review.

 

I don't think it's 100% full proof or anything, but neither is this system. I figure this is close enough, unless someone has a major problem with it.

[Ranger]

The changes in this first post were added to the process. And it's relevant to consider now since I am going to be applying the system now.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Ranger