Thread: Signature Moves
View Single Post
Old 05-11-2016, 05:23 PM   #75
Altocharizard55
The Scientist
 
Altocharizard55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Republican Capitol of America
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snorby View Post
UPN just ate my post so this will be brief(er).

Basically:

As I've said multiple times, it creates an actual dialogue between approver and submitter that's desperately needed. With a full purge, we'll just start doing everything the same way again except with some rough guidelines to look at that each new Sig LO will undoubtedly tweak, and then in a while we'll be right back here again. There needs to be actual cooperation in this process. Why would it be a good idea to purge all the sigs when people have been talking about how the powers that be in ASB are uncompromising and unreasonable? That will just reinforce the narrative, not help to disprove it.

And I think you severely overestimate the difficulty this would require. There would be between 2 and 4 approvers working on this. Yes, they would need to be active. Yes, they would have to give a shit. But frankly that's what LOs should be in the first place, and saying that the current mediocre standard most of our LOs have set can't handle the upkeep isn't a good argument. The fact that we need more and better people for bigger tasks is exactly why Jeri's going to start looking into some people to help with this, i'd imagine.

I'd also like to reiterate that it takes absolutely minimal effort on the part of the submitter. In fact, it takes less than a clean wipe would. If someone signs up for a time and blows it off, that's on them, and their sigs will be looked at with no chance for revision, only retrojection.

As an aside, it would be massively appreciated if anyone could actually back it up when they say "It won't work", "it's too hard", "It will undoubtedly fail". Beating down a proposal without any given explanation or reason contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion.
To begin, I wholly agree with the idea that there should be communication on sig approvals, but Sig discussion should be happening all of the time anyways. Reinstating the "Why was my sig rejected" thread allows for plenty of discussion over the X month waiting period between approvers and submitters, so long as its used.

Now, I will make my discussion on why "it will fail" more explicit. How many sig approvers, currently, are active in approving? How many will have time to do 3-4 sessions a week for a few months? How much time will be needed to train new approvers to conduct these sessions? What happens when life schedules will create conflicts with PASBL schedules? It's a very complicated plan, not due to the fact that it -is- a schedule, but rather a very demanding one. It's probable that people will run late to meetings, run out of time early, etc etc; the whole thing is a bookkeeping nightmare.

Additionally, you are underestimating the amount of time that these meetings would end up taking. Not only would the sig approver have to mull over each submission, but would then have to spend even longer discussing with the submitter why each sig is to be rejected. This is not conducive to a speedy reform, especially compounded with the inevitable scheduling difficulties. The time/streamline advantage, I feel, is clearly on the wipe side.

Other than the discussion factor, does your plan have any further benefits?
__________________


PASBL Stats

TL 4 (35-21-6)
Current owner of the Onslaught Badge and the Monolith Badge
Previous owner of the Indurate Badge and the Dual Wing Badge (Pre-scrap)
216 TP - 84 KOs - 20 SP (11 SP Debt to Machamp-X)
(W/L/D and stats recompiled as of 4/25/17)
Observe. Adapt. Evolve.
Altocharizard55 is offline   Reply With Quote