Hello everyone, I have some updates about our process that have been discussed in-depth with the team. There are going to be a few public changes, as well as a couple of internal changes. For the sake of transparency, I will be listing every one and explaining how they will work if necessary.
1: QC Checks will be risen from 2 to 3 before being sent to GP
A very common complaint from many people about our analyses comes in the form of quality of analyses, which is the primary responsibility of QC members. So, akin to lower tiers, we will be adopting an extra QC stamp in order to ensure higher quality and to cover the weaknesses of our QC team more assuredly. While this isn't foolproof, this will guarantee that there is greater coverage toward potential weaknesses in analyses that may slip past the radar with only 2 checks.
This will be effective immediately; any analyses currently still in the QC phase will need 3 checks, and any future analyses will as well. Most analyses in GP are fine, but if modifications are necessary, then they will still be open to feedback.
2: Analyses will be rejected on a more liberal basis
This amendment bears in mind the sustainability of our process. More often than not, many analyses are forced through the wringer to be brought up to par, sometimes requiring a couple or even more checks from the same QC member to come to par. While this expands writer accessibility, the issue with this philosophy at its core is that it harms the QC team by not only divvying resources but draining the motivation and willingness of QC members to check as a whole. This point was discussed a fair bit over a long period of time, especially with several analyses that some believed needed to be rejected while others were afraid of scaring away potential new contributors. In other words, this point means that analyses will be able to be rejected more readily.
However, as a tradeoff, certain members of the QC team involved with evaluating the analysis will provide personal criticism and advice to writers whose analyses are rejected. We believe that it's important to support and help new contributors who may be interested in the process; though, while this is a priority, it is also important to consider the effect this philosophy, when applied in great excess, has on our team. This is the middle ground we met in order to account for sustainability, efficiency, and contributor accessibility.
3: Sets will be pre-decided by the QC team when slated
This one is a pretty straightforward amendment, however is one that we feel has been necessary for a while. We spend a lot of time discussing what sets should be used, to where our efficiency and focus on other, more pertinent matters wears thin. This can especially be a problem when people have the initiative to check certain analyses, which can skew the QC process by mitigating the impact of a check when a set is changed. When we put new Pokemon up for analyses, we believe listing the sets alongside them is the best approach.
They will be provided in a spoiler tag in the "Unreserved" section for people to copy and apply to their analyses before being moved to the "in QC" section of the reservation thread.
4: The QC team will have weekly meetings to assess the workload and future slates
While this point has little impact on contributors, this point will be listed regardless for transparency between the public and the QC team. As a sort of continuation from the above point, our efficiency is lacking as we spend a great amount of time leaping from one point to the other with scattered discussions. This amendment will add a much-needed layer of control to our process by allowing the QC team to focus on future slates and what needs to be done in an easy period of time. It will last throughout a 24 hour period to account for timezone and schedule disparities.
5: QC Members can take a break at any time so long as they alert the team.
This is one that's more unspoken than anything else, but we feel it's important to emphasize to create an added layer of communication between members and the team at large. It's imperative to consider that our section is at its core meant as a hobby; it's for that reason that the mental health of our members takes precedence over anything else. This approach lets us consider health and sustainability more directly while creating transparency that enables us to adapt more readily.
While these are the main changes we will be implemented immediately, there will likely be a few small philosophical changes that will be employed as well, primarily around QC/Trial QC members and member amendments. I just wanted to get these big ones that we agreed on live as soon as possible so we can resume progress.
Thank you all again for your patience, and we hope to see improvements in our process going forward as we continue to adapt to problems and prosper.