Idea on RA processing

punk d

punk d

TNPer
-
-
I had an idea to ease the processing of RA applications that I wanted to get some feedback on. It could overly burden the process or could be a good idea.

Here's the thought. Grosse's OP is always pinned on each page. I was thinking of adding the following to that page:

Applicant[c]Date of Application[c]Passed Vice Del Check[c]Passed Admin Check[c]Approved by Speaker[c]Mask Updated[c]Applicant 1[c]12/30/2013[c]x[c]X[c][c][c]Applicant 2[c]12/25/2013[c]X[c]X[c]X[c]Remasked[c][c][c][c][c][c][c][c][c][c][c][c]

Using this method, I think we could easily track applications and make sure maskings occur in a timely manner. I have not brought this to the admin team, but would like to get some input on this from the community. Is this too much? Is there a better way? Is the process fine as is. I'll look to those who are currently in the Speaker roles and former speakers to weigh in on this since you all would primarily be updating the table with the admins and Vice-Dels adding input when they performed their duties.
 
That would require editing of that post on a regular basis, dealing with ZB bbcode table code. It'd be easier to have a second googledoc, I imagine.
 
A googledoc might be better under the circumstances, but the key here is to simplify things for admin to know which applicants need to be checked without having to have us admin wade through the thread. We could even have columns for the different checks the admin have to perform.
And IIRC, the Vice Delegate also has to have the opportunity to review for a security check, and is having the SC give input. That could also be tracked using the same document.
 
I don't see the need for this at all - the thread by itself has worked fine, and adding yet more things to be updated would simply add an excessive amount of extra work. It is quite rare for there to be more than one or two applicants who need to be checked at one time, and the Speaker's Office has made a habit of nudging admins when there gets to be a little bit of a backlog - either by poking one on IRC, or posting in the Admin requests thread.

The only exception to this has been the month of December, where the Admin team pretty much dropped the ball - this despite multiple posts and pokes, of multiple admins, and provision of a list of people who needed checked/remasked. This wouldn't solve that.
 
So if I understand you correctly Silly, you feel that the current process works well excepting for the month of December?

Is that correct?

If so, then what happened in December would be an aberration and if I am reading your words correctly not something you expect to continue. Even if it were to continue, you do not believe the solution I am proposing would help solve any potential delays.

Do I have that correct?
 
I think that a better thing to do would be to have a page that would bring up all the different tools we had to use for security checks at once >_> Or something that we could just plug the IP into and it would do all the work for us.. :P
 
SillyString:
I do not think this proposal would improve the process, that is correct.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the answer, but I asked a few other questions...I'll try to focus my point - what I'm really wanting to know is if you feel the current process is working well ex-the recent December flubs.

I think I get that you don't feel this recommendation will improve the process. But I want to know if you and any other speakers present or past feel that the current process works. In other words, is looking to improve the current process of any value or should we focus on something else.
 
I largely agree with what had been said by SillyString so far in this thread. As to whether I feel the current process works, from my time in the Speaker's office it has generally been fairly efficient with it only having recently been particularly delayed, due to admins either not being around or simply not checking the thread, I would assume.
 
Alrighty then...i'll take that as the masses saying the current process works except for a recent flub. If that changes and/or is not the case please do let us know.
 
If you're looking for ways to clean up the thread a bit, rather than have new posts, you might have the speaker, VD, and admins edit the application post to signify their approval/disapproval. The only trouble would be that the user might edit their own post to fraudulently pass checks. If there's a way to turn off editing privileges in one specific subforum, I'm not seeing it, but perhaps editing privs could just be turned off for the Member group, and simply trust folks with more access not to try and trick us?

That's the best I got. I think the system we have is working fine, but I'll admit it's a bit inelegant.
 
Actually admins can see an edit history, including who made which edit. It's not shown to all moderators only because the system necessarily shows the IP of each edit for some reason.
 
Ehhh, I'm not sure editing posts would help, since the speaker and deputies can't see whether an edit history is valid or not - it'd just mean we'd have to ask the admins to verify all edit histories in addition to doing sec checks and remasking.
 
Well, that's why I suggesting removing editing privileges from Members, who comprise the majority of RA applicants. I suggested simply trusting applicants who aren't members not to lie about security checks, but I realize that's imperfect. It's probably best to stick with what we've got, unless there is some techy way of disabling editing privileges in a specific subforum.
 
There's definitely a way to restrict editing privileges in a subforum. They are restricted in the court area.

COE, I like your idea quite a bit.
 
Since the same admin is not always working on the RA apps, we do need a way for admin to communicate with each other as to the checks needed for the RA apps and which have been done and when.
There's several different checks we have to do for the IP and multing and there's also the check by the VD who may consult the SC. A spreadsheet in the form of a Google Docs might well be the only sane suggestion I've heard; and in the past we did in fact track the applications with a spreadsheet.
Given the long history of TNP and the lessons learned to have the sort of checks we require for the RA, it seems foolish to me for anyone to suggest to do away with those entirely (or at least that's what the comment sounded like); it's an open invitation to instability and chaos. Too many of us have worked too hard and for too long to go down that road again.
 
Grosse, you misunderstood my suggestion. Allow me to illustrate:

Member posts his application in the thread, and does not have any editing power over his post. It looks like this:
General COE

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of General COE, pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.
Click to expand...
So then an administrator happens along and does the security checks for that member. Under the current system, that admin would make a new post in the thread, and then look around for posts from the speaker and VD to try and figure out if an immediate mask is necessary. Under my suggestion, the admin would simply edit the post, and it would then look something like this:
General COE

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of General COE, pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

ADMIN EDIT: Checks clean, no multi. - Grosse
Click to expand...
Then the Vice Delegate comes along and determines that the member poses no threat to regional security. He then similarly edits the post, so it looks like this:
General COE

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of General COE, pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

ADMIN EDIT: Checks clean, no multi. - Grosse
VD EDIT: No regional security threat. - Sanc
Click to expand...
Later, the Speaker comes by and sees that the checks are complete, and edits the post thusly:
General COE

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of General COE, pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

ADMIN EDIT: Checks clean, no multi. - Grosse
VD EDIT: No regional security threat. - Sanc
SPEAKER EDIT: Admitted to the RA. Please remask. - Zyvet
Click to expand...
Then, an admin could easily see that the applicant was in need of remasking. Alternatively, the speaker might happen along before all the checks are complete, in which case, he could make an edit himself to conditionally admit the applicant, so the post might look like this:
General COE

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of General COE, pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

VD EDIT: No regional security threat. - Sanc
SPEAKER EDIT: Conditionally admitted, pending admin check. - Zyvet
Click to expand...
In which case an admin might edit the post thusly:
General COE

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of General COE, pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

VD EDIT: No regional security threat. - Sanc
SPEAKER EDIT: Conditionally admitted, pending admin check. - Zyvet
ADMIN EDIT: Checks clean, no multi. Remasked. - Grosse
Click to expand...
Get the idea? Basically, anytime someone touches an application, they should edit the post and say what they did. That way, all the actions related to a single application will be contained in one post, instead of overlapping throughout the thread. I think that's a much more elegant solution than a new google doc.
 
Alternatively we could go do what some other regions do which is have an applications board where each application is a new topic.
 
Elu - I've admin'd boards that do that, but usually the application is actually an application. Here this seems more of an administrative process.

I think COE's idea is a very good one. I did about 5 mins worth of digging to try to lock down a subforum for editing except for certain masks as we have in the "Courtroom" but couldn't find it. I'm sure it's there. I do believe this would make things run a lot smoother.
 
There is merit in the thread being bumped by new posts - it's a clear indication that something has happened which needs attention, and can be set to send notifications by PM/email/whatever, whereas edits provide no such helpful bump.

COE's solution is the best alternate I've seen to what we have now, but I'm not sure it'd actually be an improvement over the current system.
 
Well, the applicant's post is enough to trigger one action from each relevant party (admin team, speaker, and VD). Now, unless the admin check comes last, the admin can't check and remask in one step - they need to come back after all the checks are done and the applicant is admitted to remask, and SillyString is correct that having the extra posts to bump the thread is helpful in that regard. However, given that we have quite a few admins, and the applicant's post bumps the thread for all of them, it's not unreasonable to expect that even after one admin has done the security check before the Speaker of VD do their parts, another admin might happen along after they're all done and remask.
 
What I am looking for is centralizing the information so admin are not having to search through and find which applicants need attention. The less time admin have to spend searching the more they have to perform the checks that use the IP or the email addy both on and off forum. I've been involved with this for a long time, and I wouldn't be making a point over simplifying and centralizing the information. (And I will add that as Speaker, I did use a spreadsheet for this very reason, of course we also had to track TNP and WA nations, but even without the WA nation matter, the need to have everything in one place to handle the processing hasn't changed.

The other reason is that the Vice Delegate needs to be able to find those names in one place as well for the same reason. The GoogleDocs option is not a bad alternative and shouldn't be disregarded, because personalities will change, and those who exercise the different roles in processing RA applications should be able to step into those roles with the process as centralized as possible.
 
And Grosse, I believe COE's suggestion solves that. We might get on average 2 apps a day, that might even be a little high. If we use the edit suggestion, I think it would be pretty difficult to lose track of applications and have them bumped off the page before they've been processed. This is because the OP of the applicant is in constant use.

I think it works really well provided we can lock down the edit function.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top