My Council Idea would be something akin to: 2-4 Users with 2-4 months of volunteer time

Users have multiple ways to go about Nominations: Option A: Pet is nominated, goes into the Nomination Pool, gets accepted by staff for no issues, goes into PS Queue Pool Option B: Pet is nominated, goes into the Nomination Pool, gets rejected by staff for reasons, pet comes to the council for feedbake Option C: Pet with council feedback is fixed and ready for Nomination again, comes with small commentary about what was changed and why pet is now ready for the queue, gets accepted by staff, goes into the PS Queue Pool

The idea is that the Council has the option to Nominate pets and provide reasoning on why this pet is now ready to win the PS to staff. They act as a mediator and advocate for the user and their pets.

This is just something I'd love to see. Users having more say in the Spotlight, and being able to support one another in the process. It would be a pita to make, but I think it would be the best way. The Spotlight is for us users to show our pets off to other users. Getting little checkboxes for rejection from staff doesn't really qualify as me the user interacting with my fellows within the pet community.

This idea sounds like a spoofed up version of the PSSupport, only we'd have to appeal to the staff about this idea and then give 2-4 users special contact to the staff (unless you planned on using sMail or comments to explain why a pet was ready for the PS), like a submit form. Then rules concerning nominating pets for the spotlight would have to be changed, because it's against the rules to ask for others to do so. (I think they should be changed, but right now it appears as if the staff isn't or "can't", rather, going to do anything about this.) You'd need like secret code to be able to ask with the current rules. And I think 2-4 users is a little low. I was thinking like ten members at least on the council to make up for different time zones, emergencies and everything else.

I agree with you about the users interacting, but this idea seems like it would take longer to do then just giving us what we're asking for the in the first place, some simple reasons why the pet got rejected. Perhaps is the whole group of PSSupport (or select admins of the group) were given such authority, we'd be heading in the right direction. Like 4-8 admins of the group come back to the regular group members with results from rejected pets and together they work on fixing it and giving suggestions.

Oh, hm, what's this here? vvvvvvvvvvv

(my bolding for emphasis) Bitch please, I'd write up rejections all day long for a shiny GA.

Maybe the issue isn't "there isn't enough time" but rather "there isn't enough time for that one person put on pet spotlight and maybe something should be done about it"

It is not a volunteer position -- it is a paid position! That's why it isn't so simple as hiring more mini-mods, who are volunteers.

did you not read any of what I reposted? just saying

I did read it, but it seemed like you were under the misconception that it was a volunteer position, based on what you said about doing it for a GA ;) Apologies if I misinterpreted!

I do agree with the sentiment that something needs to change, though. I'd love to see , aka our creative director, come in with some ideas because right now I feel like this thread is just a dogpile on :c

I realize it's a paid position, and it's being extremely neglected. I was just reiterating what someone else said by putting mini-mods on the job, because that's 1) free and 2) would get shit done.

I personally think Jessi has too much on her plate, and I would rather not see pet spotlights go down in flames because of this "lack of time"

- The issue is the PSSupport group has NO CLOUT, nor do they have any real voice in how pets go about going into the nomination queue. Pets get Nominated, go through staff channels strictly, and then get rejected or acceptable. This thread is riddled with people saying "I've been rejected a bunch of times, and still have no idea what is wrong." With some backing from Subeta in an official capacity, these people would be advocates for the users. They could protest that a pet has been rejected but the pet is truly ready for the Nomination queue.

I am adamantly against the idea that Subeta staff gives us feedback on our pets when the Spotlight is for users to show off their pets to other users. I want to see more participation by the community, not be dependent that staff tell us what is yay or nay. But that is me. I have a very different mindset about the PS than most of the participants in this thread. For me, I want to see a more active, collaborative, and reflective pet community. I just don't know how to help make that happen.

I'm not quite sure how we could run the PS without the Staff telling us what is wrong with the pets and even with the Council, it's still like people in a higher position telling you what's wrong with your pet before it has to get into the queue. Could you please elaborate a little more?

- I'm not sure I understand the sticking point that STAFF has to tell us, the user, what is wrong with a pet we are trying to show off to other users? For me the dependency on staff with the Spotlight doesn't make any sense. It should be users telling one another how to fix any potential issues that might be wrong with a pet, why it might not progress into the queue and such. For example, a pet lacking proper acknowledgements, a solid neon green background with bright blue 7pt font, a story riddled with grammar, punctuation and inappropriate subject matter. All of these are very general reason why a pet would easily be rejected.

But for those moments when a pet uses a different style of writing, or is rejected for what is possibly something minor or very subjective, users can petition for that pet to progress into the PS queue pool. Pets would still need to go into the Nomination queue and be accepted by staff, but at least with a council of users who know the expectations, who can make unbiased and objective decisions and recommendations, perhaps the whole process would be more inspiring and confident.

I want to see more user on user contact and support. Not putting that expectation solely on staff.

Yeah, I think people should help each other with pets and the Pet Spotlight because they want to. It's different for staff of course because it's their job.

I just don't really see a point in randomly temporarily elevating certain users to act as a sanctioned but still "unofficial" liaison. Users can offer help in the forums. Staff can reject, but should offer more help than what's currently available in a pretty limited capacity. What happens hypothetically when the pool of debateably impartial and knowledgeable users runs dry? Would these people all be previously Spotlight winners or members of the elite pet cults? The higher members from the forum group? What about the previously raised issue of critiquing in an unbiased way? There's a lot of overlap between artists, coders, writers, and people who are working on completing pets.

I think the idea is nice in theory but is needlessly complicated and ultimately serves no purpose other than what can already be made available in much simpler ways. The only thing that really changes is that someone gets to be "sanctioned" for a while.

- I must repeat myself, why is everyone stuck on the idea that only Subeta staff can tell us what is wrong? Right now, that seems to be the only way people are willing to work on their pets. Pet gets rejected and staff HAS to tell you what is wrong, and why. To me, that is akin to asking the staff to hold our hands and guide us the user through to getting our pet a Spotlight win.

I'm a pre-service teacher and I'm married to one as well. Nothing is worse than a teacher giving a student all the answers because they aren't willing to seek peer-evaluations or help. To me, I see a feedback system from the staff no longer means any user on user interaction. People will instantly by-pass it, and EXPECT staff to tell a person what is wrong.

The council idea was just a way to help gather some confidence and give users some faith in the system. It is not a popular idea because it is a complex idea, and people don't seem to be willing to trust their peers, which saddens me.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that the system that you want is what we have now, you just want to add a fancy title to it.

And sometimes, those users can't see what staff seems to see that's wrong. Sometimes users suggest things for people to change half a dozen times and their pet still gets rejected, so they give up because they can't tell what's wrong with it in the eyes of the staff, and neither can the users trying to help.

Even if there was a group of users who volunteered to do this sort of thing, they would be the same users willing to help out already and they still wouldn't necessarily be able to see what is wrong. Giving them extra powers to kick things out of the queue or whatever (which, I also think is way more power than a regular user should have) isn't going to suddenly enlighten them to what's wrong with the pets that get submitted.

So those pets that have been submitted six times and still get rejected, if they get submitted through this special group of users and get passed onto the staff to check out, they'll still get rejected. I don't understand why you're so against staff just giving people a starting point for what to fix with their pet. With nothing but a general reason like story/coding/etc. people will still need to come to the forums to figure out what specifically is wrong with it.

Sorry but the only thing that's stuck is your preoccupation with a flawed suggestion. Maybe you'll garner support by collecting your thoughts, refining your ideas, and starting a fresh topic since this one is straying.

I'm a teacher too and no one gets helped by the know-it-all students more than themselves. It's abundantly clear who you think should have voice and clout and power. I tried to respond in a direct and civil manner, opposing the idea and not the user, and all I got was a rude reiteration that shows just how much you're hung up on this.

I'm sure you're tremendously helpful to those who want your help and the idea isn't all bad. It's not even half bad. For now you can help as you and the site see fit, but until your suggestion gets taken up or a new position becomes available I'll offer my thoughts on it. Should the latter happen, I'm sure you'd be great at it and I do mean that sincerely just by looking at your wins and seeing your passion for a flailing area. I apologize for my rudeness but I think yours was unwarranted and now your emotions are clouding your judgement. [edit] For weird mobile formatting.

- I actually made suggestions to help fix some of the vary things you're mentioning. I specified that users would be able to petition for pets that are in that rejection cycle. In all honesty, I have seen pets that I sit and scratch my head at why they keep getting rejected. Sometimes the reason seems more obvious to me (content about drugs and alcohol for example), others it can be a big picture issue. But, if users could tell staff, honestly, that a user's pet IS nomination worthy perhaps it would end that vicious cycle.

Also, I'd like to point out I never, ever said anything about a council of users having the power to kick pets from the queue. The sole purpose would be to provide valuable, worthwhile feedback with some confidence that what those people said carries weight with the staff. That a petition saying "Soandso has fixed issue a,b,c and is now ready for the Nomination queue." would actually mean something, and truly yield the desired result. The PSSupport group currently functions as a place for users to go, who are willing to seek help, and sometimes muddle through why a pet got rejected.

For me, I'd love to just see more community interaction. I guess I see something like this with users who are immersed in the community, active on the site, as a better source for assistance, feedback, and encouragement than a staff that is often quiet on most topics of consequence, and spread too thin time and money wise to fully participate.

- I'm sorry, but I'm unsure where you got the idea that I want a position of power, clout or voice. I most certainly don't, and I'm more for trying to help people. I like the Spotlight. I don't want to see it go away or die off. I don't want to see people in a vicious rejection cycle. I want users who are interested in obtaining a win to know they have a resource to go to that would be truly valuable and substantive because there's a real outcome to it.

And yes, likely some emotion is clouding my judgement, but that is partly because I've read posts about getting rid of the queue, or that they don't care about it any more because of one reason or another. That makes me sad and a bit angry.

Going to quote things in chunks just to make replying easier on me since it's late.

That's exactly why I think staff should be able to check a box for the reasoning. Because of reactions like that where users can't find anything.

I see at this point that I'll never change your mind, but personally I feel that's backwards. Because if these users tell the staff, hey I think this is worthy, and staff still sees an error, then what? Will staff tell the users what's wrong, like people are asking for without this overcomplication, or just reject it again and leave everyone in the dark?

That's the thing, I still don't think it would though. Because what if those users are wrong? Then either, like I said earlier, we circle back to the same suggestion people are asking for now (staff gives a very basic reason for the rejection) or users are left in the dark and just as confused.

I think part of the issue I take with your suggestion is that you seem to (ideally) want the people examining the pets for nomination, and the people giving suggestions about what to fix and what's wrong, to be the same people. I really don't think promoting a handful of users (again, likely the same ones that hang out on the forums to give assistance already) to this position would suddenly spur this great, thriving community of pet people out of nowhere.

To be perfectly honest, I don't even think it would help ease the frustration that much, certainly not more than staff checking a basic reason for the rejection would.

No one is asking for staff assistance or feedback though. That would be left up to the users. All people are asking for in this thread is for staff to check a box noting the basic reason they found that caused the pet to be rejected.

I don't understand.... surely this council of users would have the same knowledge as the existing users on PSSupport? They would have no additional details handed to them by the staff for why a pet was rejected?

Therefore, how will they suddenly have the ability to say why that person's pet was rejected, when the people of PSSupport couldn't find anything wrong?

Example (all suggestions for changes came from PSSupport):

Pet was submitted for the spotlight & rejected (1) Redrafted the story

Pet was rejected (2) Tweaked the coding & made a few more story changes

Pet was rejected (3) Made the profile work for extra-wide screen resolutions and redrafted the story again

Pet was rejected (4) Hovers suddenly stopped working, so tweaked the coding to make them behave

Pet was rejected (5) (redid the coding & graphics completely even though PSSupport could find nothing wrong)

If we had a hint of a reason what was wrong (the tick box saying "coding" for instance, would hint at it not working on wide screens, or the hover being off), that could've saved several rejections, and changes that obviously still haven't hit the reason for the rejection. I'm not convinced that a "Subeta council" of the same people who already help in PSSupport would have the extra knowledge to be able to help with that....

I've been thinking about your idea for awhile, rereading your posts about it multiple times, and I still can't figure out how it would be any different than current PSSupport. I understand in your idea they would have more power, but it seems like the "Middle Man" that we don't need. Like everyone else was saying, I agree that this process would make things more complicated than they are now. As said, if the Staff gave us a general reason why the pet was rejected, then people would still have to come to the boards to pinpoint exactly what was problematic.

I think that in order for us to have a more active pet community, first we need the Staff to give us some general feedback. Then more people will join back in the spotlight and therefore more people will go to PSSupport for help, causing a larger pet community to appear.

I'm really happy to hear that at least it's being discussed. I also really like the idea that had for simply liking a pet the same way that we can like HAs- even if that only applied to pets that were currently leashed (it might encourage more people to take advantage of that feature as well).

I'm not sure I'm crazy about an upvote/downvote system though, even if we couldn't advertise. I feel like it would become a popularity contest far too quickly, especially since you guys have no way to enforce people advertising in private chats or IRCs or stop them from bashing each other on Tumblr. We don't need more open opportunities for drama.