What if there was some form of auto-approval if the story's creators and editors don't log in after a pertinent length of time? I can't say what an appropriate length of time would be, and there would likely need to be a flag to indicate the thread was automatically approved. Each author's responsible for the content of their own threads, and readers ought to be able to report violations in threads, provided they have an account on the site (so as not to abuse the function, especially if they just want to report content they dislike). This would behoove editors to remain active or at least aware of occasional changes made to their stories. It's not like there's a limit anymore on branches that can be made from a thread.
Auto-approve didn't work too well on the old CHYOO. Users made as many as 12 extra usernames just to exploit the feature. Even with an email check in the programming to minimizes cases, this is overcome with extra email addresses. IP checks can be fooled with Proxy and VPN, if only temporarily in best case scenarios. What it means is just to avoid an exploitation, the moderation team has to view the auto-approved threads and confirm they were auto-approved in the spirit of the function. Once we reach that conclusion, the rational follow-up is that auto-approve has moderators going through the same process as a replacement editor, and that Friedman did a whole lot of programming to find a new way to perform the old process. However, if we can find a better system for auto-approval, we may be able to moot the above. If a means of auto-approving threads existed with something besides a moderator to prevent exploitation, then we can consider asking Friedman to program this new system. Otherwise, story adoption is a better solution.
I thought the proxy dilemma had been cracked by now (aside from their supposed unreliability). Apart from that and VPN, I was hoping the site had added security over the old one. Given the limitations of current technology, it makes sense to rely on adoption. My concern is mainly that it's somewhat of a burden on the site administrators to micromanage these kinds of requests. Perhaps a more ideal solution can present itself in future. The other matter is always whether the original creator maintains creative ownership over his or her labor, regardless of time. It's probably a bit convoluted given the collaborative nature of the beast.
You've got it completely backwards. It's not that the site is limited, it's that the world is changing. Once VPN is completely nullified, there'll be a new thing to weasel around IP checks, or proxies and VPN will be updated to get around these new measures. It's the sad truth of the world, be it real or cyber: every new means of prevention introduces a new means of circumvention. Safe crackers, chess players, and computer hackers alike are always finding new methods because their opponents are always getting smarter. I may not know what Friedman has in the CHYOA site, but I do know that if it's perfect now, it won't be perfect forever.
I don't like the idea of story adoption. I would rather prefer a system of story sitting. Thinkable sitter would be (maybe in following order): 1. user stated by the story owner 2. valued users 3. user with already accepted threads 4. moderators
I don't know what you mean when you say 'Thinkable sitter'. What's a thinkable sitter? I'll take a stab at the following being what you might be thinking of, or if not then maybe it's a system like it. Creator of the story has and retains ultimate rights. They return everyone else returns to their previous status. But if they don't respond to an addition in need of approval, then the the power to edit and approve temporarily passes to... Second in command, whoever the creator specifically lists via an as-yet-unimplemented option. If the second-in-command doesn't respond to current activity (threads needing approval), then power passes to... Trusted users, with first priority being assigned by some system or other (weighted ratings of their contribution's by number and rating). If the first doesn't respond, it goes to the 2nd, then 3rd, until none are left, at which point... Repeat the trusted user scenario with contributors who are of regular status (meaning, not-trusted, they need to have their stuff approved by the owner or editor. If none of them step up (which would be strange since someone made the original to-be-approved thread that started the whole mess... Moderator takes the reins, bangs their head against the wall as yet another un-manned story hits their inbox. This seems kind of complicated. I'd probably stop it at the trusted user phase. If no trusted user wants it then the story might gain an 'orphaned' flag that shows on the front page and description.
Indeed. The simplest set-up is: 1.) Editor - full rights from the start. 2.) Sub-Editor - Gains full rights if a thread is pending for too long and the Editor doesn't log in during that time, and initiated only by choice on a first come first served basis; otherwise, it's a glorified Trusted. 3.) Trusted - Elevated to Sub-Editor should all Sub-Editors pass on the story, and again initiated only by choice on a first come first served basis; otherwise can only bias formal thread approval procedures. 4.) Moderator - Takes control when everyone has passed until a random user volunteers to adopt the story, assuming the moderator in question doesn't want the story. The points of concern become what happens if the original editor returns, how the masses are notified of a story up for adoption, and whether or not there is a better, fairer system than first come first served (given that, unlike a restaurant, this can have a timezone bias). I'm also curious if a manual transition could be implemented; instead of the story only passing when pending threads and log ins are too few, an Editor can hand select which Sub-Editor takes control or initiate the free-for-all personally. This would be useful if the Editor knows it will be unable to edit and would like to change control as soon as possible so as to minimize the inconvenience to other users.
I seem to recall a discussion on these boards on how to show top-rated stories. The discussion listed the problem of a single rating of 5 trumping 43 ratings of 4.8 average. If a weighted rating system is ever implemented then it could be applied to a situation like this If it got to the Trusted stage then the various Trusted could indicate that they are trusted, with the ultimate winner being the one whose threads have the highest weighted rating. There would be a few days or a week in which to indicate your interest. If none of them have ratings then I suppose a free-for-all would ensue, or perhaps rely on number of posts to determine a winner. How it would be initiated might be automated. The owner is sent an e-mail notifying them that it has been, say, two weeks since a thread was added to their story that needs their approval. Two weeks later another e-mail is sent, but with a notice that in two weeks the story will be made available for temporary adoption. At that point the system checks for a sub-editor, and if none is found it automatically IM's the trusted parties, notifying them of the availability of the story and the process. If the original editor returns I assume they automatically regain control of the story. They'll already have notifications of all the changes, so if they decided they hate everything then I suppose they could use whatever means are available to carve out the various additions. This whole thing makes me think of how in the open-source programming world you can fork a project. It brings it to mind because it would sort of be a shame for all the additions to be wiped out because the story creator hated them. Still, it's their story, and it's creative rights, so that would be a whole different kettle.
The most important things (in my opinion): 1. The owner should stay the owner. 2. Approving means to ensure the minimum quality, the owner want to have for his story. (e.g. a previous co-author would probably only allow posts, that meets that minimum quality.) 3. Approving means also to ensure, that the posts follow the rules. (responsibility for your own stories, even if you are away!)
So bidding rules would be as followed: 1.) The Sub-Editor user with the highest weighted rating gets first dibs. 2.) In the event of weighted ratings being identical between two or more users of the same level, the tie is broken by the tied users' number of threads with the more active user getting first dibs. 3.) Should this Sub-Editor pass, dibs pass to the Sub-Editor with the next highest weighted rating. 4.) Should all Sub-Editors pass, dibs pass to the Trusted user with the highest weighted rating. 5.) Should all Sub-Editors and Trusted users pass, a Moderator takes control until a new Editor is appointed. That's actually a pretty good call. Besides breaking the system down fairly, it encourages users to add more threads if they want to take control. The big point is how we break order the ratings in relation to both only the story and the whole site: Should we start with number on the site total, and then switching to only in-story, or start with in-story numbers before resorting to whole site? That's another little conundrum to consider: a user praised and active on the whole site could be seen as more valuable to the story's growth, but a user with higher pay offs and more investment in one story could be seen as better equipped to take over. Certainly one then the other in both cases with rating take precedence over number of threads, and it makes for a four-step check to maximize fairness. The big question would be how to order these steps, and uniformity is a given. In other words, it would look like one of the following: 1.) Highest weighted rating on the entire site is selected first. 2.) In the event of a tie, highest weighted rating for the story in question is selected first. 3.) Should the tie persist, largest number of threads on the entire site is selected first. 4.) If there's still a tie, largest number of threads for the story in question is selected first. 5.) If the tie remain unresolved, first come is first served. or 1.) Highest weighted rating for the story in question is selected first. 2.) In the event of a tie, highest weighted rating on the entire site is selected first. 3.) Should the tie persist, largest number of threads for the story in question is selected first. 4.) If there's still a tie, largest number of threads on the entire site is selected first. 5.) If the tie remain unresolved, first come is first served. It comes to what the community thinks is more important: a net cast wide, or devotion to a story. Either way, I think we're close.
I would go with the second of the options since it seems the writer's interest and performance in the story is what is at stake. They might write wonderful threads and stories and yet have grasped the wrong end of the knife for the current story. This is starting to turn into a [suggestion] thread. If a moderator happened to stumble across it would they have to move the relevant portions to a new suggestion thread? ;-)
If the owner accepted posts of an user in his story, so it is a sign of trust. This should be preferred. First of all the owner should have the possibility to name a trusted friend.
Do we have enough valuable abandoned stories that it's worth forging an adoption policy for replacing absent editors right now? I feel like we might be getting ahead of ourselves, since I don't have a strong personal sense that we need to deal with this urgently. I understand the frustration of contributors who don't get their threads reviewed/adopted. But wouldn't it be better in the first instance to have an indication, when submitting a thread or looking at the editor's author page, to have their most recent activity date highlighted? That way if you submit a thread to an idle author, you won't feel as let down, and you as thread author can ask the moderators for help or suggestions without having to be in a hurry to take over the story you're trying to contribute to. I'd like us as a community to try hard to find absent editors before substituting them on a story. In some ways I feel that allowing a contributor to an absent author's story to make a copy of the whole story and proceed as an editor of the copy might be better than having an administrative transfer to the first writer who asks. If the writer asking for editing access is a previous contributor of a significant part of the story, that might weigh more in favor of transferring editorship. -Z.
I suppose you're right. While there are a few editors who departed CHYOO and will need their stories adopted here on CHYOA, this system won't help them. Consider this more of a for tomorrow strategy meeting, nothing urgent. It was a simple comment that grew to a conversation, suggestion, and serious thought. With all the other things we could use, this is probably the last thing we need. In fact, I think the ability to localize the site's clock and calendar to each users' time zone takes priority over this. That said, this is still worth looking in on every so often.
