This was a major point of confusion when I was new to the site. I assumed that it did what Forum Crit does, since well it's on the site, right? And the team that reviews posted works, well they often did so in the discussion thread, which is a forum, so isn't that Forum Crit?

While the "PWRD" acronym might change, ultimately I think there should be one Criticism team (for the forums, drafts, etc), and one Review (or similar word) team.

Why isn't real-time crit it's own independent team then? Right now, there isn't the activity or scope on the team to justify it. Real-time crit can function just as successfully, if not more (given the manpower and resources of a larger team), as a sub-team of PWRD as it could independently and can still act relatively autonomously, as can be seen by the almost entirely different mission statements between sub-teams. Additionally, should circumstances change in the future and thecritters does demand a full-fledged staffteam, the existence of a sub-team doing the same thing makes the creation of a new team so much easier.

EDIT: Following discussion, the team will remain as 'site crit' and the Published Works sub-team has been renamed to the PWRD Subteam. Changes to the sandbox will be made accordingly.

I would also recommend that specific members are selected to act as mentors. JS should receive a fair amount of attention, and care when training, so you want to be sure the people training them have the time and skills to properly uplift them.

I also also think the name isn't that great. People understand what to expect from a team called "Site Crit", but I fear PWRD will have the same issues as MAST. No one will know what they do.

We share the same concerns, and there are ongoing discussions on ways to materially encourage people to help out and do critique a-la Forum Crit. It's definitely a thing in our minds that we'd like to address sooner rather than later!

I do want to mention, and don't take this as a deterrent from continuing, but it should be no surprise to anyone to realize that we are presently understaffed for maintenance roles. The addition of the Recap team will further divert current staff's attention as will other initiatives. I do fear that if this new team is rolled out right now while everything is so shaky, that its start may not roll out as well as preferred and other teams may suffer at least initially.

There aren't great solutions to this other than delaying its roll out until a time where other teams are better staffed and on better footing, but if that is not preferred now, then I hope one of your first tasks will be to start a recruitment drive so that current staff are not stretched as thin.

This is very good, and fulfills a niche that has been sorely lacking on the site for quite a long time. I like the expanded set of responsibilities, I like integrating real-time crit into it rather than informally putting it on the already-overloaded forum crit. I have absolutely no issues with the team as described.

But I've lived through no less than 3 site crit revivals in my time on the site. As you can see, none of them have been successful. I have every hope this one will succeed, but I think there's an element there we need to think about - why does site crit keep dying? I won't pretend to know the answer to that one, but I think considering elements of accountability to ensure this one doesn't meet the same fate is a good idea. Forum Crit has reviewer's spotlights; an incentive never hurts to get people up and at em. I think even just instituting some sort of internal team expectation, like a channel where people post their crit comments, could go a long way in fostering an atmosphere where people want to do crit, which I think would be a big factor in preventing site crit vol 4 from being a bust.

Major thanks to Elenee FishTruck and ManyMeats, who laid the groundwork and did serious work to get PWRD off the ground. Also thank you to everyone who took a look at this before it went to 05, namely Pedagon, MomBun, DrBleep and and everyone in Site Crit and SCPD's #meta-scp-discussion.

Problem 1: Site crit is dead. Like, super dead. Four months ago, a proposal was put up to un-dead site crit by transforming it into a team that, instead of just focusing on giving feedback, will prioritise creating and taking part in discussion on comments pages, as well as recruiting and mentoring JS who wish to improve critique skills. Elenee put it much more elegantly than me, so I will just direct you to her post linked before regarding the benefits this will bring.

Problem 2: #Thecritters is on life support. Staff presence is minimal, as is that of experienced reviewers/greenlighters. This is because, fundamentally, the channel has not changed since it's inception in 2016, while the wiki and irc has changed enormously in that time. This is partly because stewardship and control over the channel has always been a murky mix of Site Crit, Forum Crit and Chatstaff's jurisdiction, making it difficult to push for meaningful change. The first step to fixing this is cementing authority over the channel under one sub-team, the real-time crit team, so major policy changes can be made in the future to hopefully recover real-time crit to what it once was.

Solution: http://scpdsandbox.wikidot.com/collab:pwrd3

PWRD 3.0, a combination of Elenee and Meat's proposals to entirely rebrand Site Crit with a little Limey thrown in for good luck. All thoughts, suggestions and concerns would be greatly appreciated to ensure this restructure can be as successful as possible.

This Discussion is open to everyone, go nuts. Will be open for 1 week.