Timeline for Should trusted close/reopen voters and reviewers have their votes weighted more than others'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2, 2022 at 5:24 | comment | added | Catija Staff | Regarding point 3, I needed to keep that paragraph brief because there are so many caveats and so much to decide about what a reasonable "good" is - and I trust that, if we move forward, we'll look into the data we have as well as discussing mitigations. We'll likely also make it pretty highly configurable so that we can adjust as needed to find a good target and review the actions that caused someone to gain/lose the privilege. We could probably even do a dry-run where we follow whether someone would have the privilege or not without actually granting it. | |
| Feb 2, 2022 at 5:18 | comment | added | Catija Staff | Regarding your first paragraph - yes. When we gate by rep, anyone who can earn that rep can use the feature, whether they understand it or not - this means we must build in some amount of room for people using the privilege "wrong". If we adjust our process to make it so that privileges must be earned by active participation and use of a tool or going through a training/course/hula hoop, the need for extra checks on the privileges reduces. E.g. if we require someone to have a good suggested edit history before they can edit directly, we can grant direct editing earlier. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 22:59 | comment | added | TylerH | "What matters the most here [...is...] ensuring that later edits to the post that result in it getting reopened do not mark the previous close votes as invalid." This line is doing a lot of heavy lifting, and is probably the hardest part to get right. Not done reading all the existing answers yet, but I plan on posting my own response that will include some thoughts on this danger. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 22:06 | comment | added | Spevacus Mod | @Catija Oh, awesome. Thank you! I feel much better that it was received in that way. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 21:45 | comment | added | Catija Staff | The paragraph about the mods was poorly phrased and so I've updated it. The version here is significantly enough different that their opinions may be quite different. The post was positively received but there were concerns. In particular, the original proposal had item 4 as the default behavior. The feedback was clear that this was concerning, so I rethought things and realized my concerns could be mitigated in other ways. | |
| Feb 1, 2022 at 20:05 | history | edited | SpevacusMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 57 characters in body
|
| Feb 1, 2022 at 19:44 | history | answered | SpevacusMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |