Forums - Open Redstone Engineers

Type: General


Change Petitioned For:
A new rank for ORE members
I propose a new rank is added following Builder.  This new rank will be called Engineer, fitting well with the server’s name: Open Redstone Engineers.  The rank is meant to serve not only as a label for those of higher computational redstone skill but also to serve as a “trusted” rank within the ORE community.


Engineer applications would be broken up into 2 parts: member approval and application approval.  First is the member approval, a vote is created for the applicant in question.  Staff members are able, but not required, to vote on whether they feel the applicant is trustworthy or not.  The vote stays up till at least a minimum number of votes is hit.  If the approval percentage is high enough, the application continues.  Following that, the application approval is what happens with normal Builder applications, a staff member reviews the application to ensure sufficient knowledge (of CPUs or something equivalent in complexity) is demonstrated.


Following an approved application, the member would undergo a trial.  Engineer trials would consist of a pre-built CPU (or equivalent) and a staff member to review.  A successful trial means the member is now an Engineer.


Engineer could serve as another rank with permission to run Builder trials.  This means Builder applicants will have more people they can ask to trial them, meaning less waiting.  While the members are trusted, I still do feel it’s important to have the results of the trials reviewed by ORE staff members to ensure their validity.


Additionally, the Engineer rank gives many Builders a much needed goal to fuel their motivation.  A requirement of CPU-level understanding would mean more people building CPUs and similarly complex redstone.


Reasons for Change:

• Break up the high range of skills of the current Builder rank into 2 groups
  
• Help those learning higher level redstone get an idea of who is likely able to assist them
  
• Give Builder applicants a larger number of people to ask in order to complete their trial
  
• Motivate Builders to learn beyond ALUs
  

Reasons for No Change (optional but recommended):

• Some members might assume non-Engineers are unqualified to teach CPU-level redstone
  • This is brought up sometimes when the old Teacher rank is talked about.  This seems more a fundamental issue of ranks on ORE rather than an issue specific to 1 rank in particular.  This issue also exists with Builder, some feel that Students are unqualified to teach even though they might possess the understanding needed for a given topic.
    
• Potentially more work for ORE Staff
  • I can’t speak for how much work this would add, but I’m sure the ability of Engineers to run Builder trials would at least take some work away elsewhere.
    
• Acceptable Engineer trial builds are unclear
  • I agree, and it’s difficult to capture everything without a really long explanation.  This is why I feel it’s best to take this on a case-by-case basis rather than pretending we can well-define everything allowed.
    
• It’d be easier not to add a new rank
  • While not wrong, I feel that a similar line of logic could apply to most or all petitions.  The problem applying to all petitions means it’s not the best measure of a petition’s worth.  A better way to think about it is, “does the work pay off?”.
    

I really, really like this idea.
One small thing: A term such as "Engineer" implies technical knowledge only, so the rank not being granted due to trust issues even though the person has constructed an awesome build should only happen in extreme cases. By that I mean, this should only happen if the individual in question has seriously fucked up/someone over, not because people do not know him well (More clearly: Have a rank signifying technical skill be governed by that to 99%, not a popularity contest).
On a side note while "CPU" is definitely a good start I would go as far as restricting it to pipelined CPU's but of course thats just my view of it. It is probably best left a loose guideline as sometimes other things that might be smaller but genius also deserve recognition (For example: 3T CCA, or Powsi's and Amino's 7 seg.)
I'd just be a bit sad if horizontal RCA ALU cpu's built in like 3 days get you such a rank.

But, everything else about this sounds great tbh. Dunno how "staff validates trial" is supposed to work like, i guess skimming thru chat and shortly glancing at trial build is fine.

@Trecar

The name is independent of the trust condition; I think it would be hard to think of a name that could really fit... The trust condition stems from:
"Engineer could serve as another rank with permission to run Builder trials."
meaning, they could trial Students to become Builders; you definitely need some trust there.

I think we can all agree that many things can be highly technical: displays, adders, flying machines, doors, survival farms (wood, mobs, etc). All of these deserve recognition, but should not deserve the rank, the rank should reflect what the server's vision is for its members. ORE being a computational redstone server should encourage the making and teaching of computing machines.

I think as part of the trial these CPUs/machines should additionally showcase different programs; for example sorting algorithms, string manipulations, .... and maybe a list of these accepted programs should be made. Because there is nothing wrong with a horizontal RCA ALU if it can do cool things, like calculating the weekday of Christmas day on 1888 or symbolic manipulations to simplify equations. Nothing sad about that.

Should there be an option to make a video explaining the build, rather than doing so in a trial? That way you can prepare visuals, and really think through the explanation of how it works. Then the judge can have a look around the in-game build, and ask all the additional questions.

I didn't think this through, so I'm prepared to have people poke all sorts of holes in this suggestion. Just something to think about.

(05-14-2020, 12:01 AM)Powsi Wrote: [ -> ]Should there be an option to make a video explaining the build, rather than doing so in a trial? That way you can prepare visuals, and really think through the explanation of how it works. Then the judge can have a look around the in-game build, and ask all the additional questions.

I didn't think this through, so I'm prepared to have people poke all sorts of holes in this suggestion. Just something to think about.

I think that's an interesting idea, but I also agree there's probably some issue to be concerned with (Though I can't think of any off the top of my head). I think rather than it being an option for Engineer trials, it might be a good idea to start out with it being used for Builder trials instead, that way it minimizes the amount of power someone gets, if it becomes "too easy" to get promoted with the video option, while still giving an idea of how well it works.

This petitions has reached the required support and is therefore accepted. We will start work on implementing this, though there are clearly some details that need to be decided.

I just want to mention that if you'd like to get involved in the discussion and development, you can do so here. We will likely try a few configurations, so when this is implemented, remember that things are subject to change.

To recap, what we need to figure out is:
- how will selection be done? Do we run trials in the typical sense, but with higher requirements?
- what permissions and benefits do we offer engineers?

I've been waiting for this forever.

It should be noted that Engineer has two roles here. It might be worth considering "Trialer" distinct from "Engineer".

I don't think engineer trials are a good way to indicate skill because more complex builds should take more than a few hours to complete. Rather have the candidate post their most impressive creations and ask the community to vote. (I also have some doubts about builder trials. The time limit imposed means essentially memorizing designs instead of taking time to perfect one's own designs. Posting impressive enough builds and being able to thoroughly explain them should be enough)

P.S. I propose four ranks: Builder, Engineer, Scientist, Guru

(05-31-2020, 12:33 AM)jxu Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think engineer trials are a good way to indicate skill because more complex builds should take more than a few hours to complete. Rather have the candidate post their most impressive creations and ask the community to vote. (I also have some doubts about builder trials. The time limit imposed means essentially memorizing designs instead of taking time to perfect one's own designs. Posting impressive enough builds and being able to thoroughly explain them should be enough)

(05-12-2020, 04:06 AM)IAmLesbian Wrote: [ -> ]Engineer trials would consist of a pre-built CPU (or equivalent) and a staff member to review.

pre-built

(05-29-2020, 09:34 PM)PabloDons Wrote: [ -> ]To recap, what we need to figure out is:
- how will selection be done? Do we run trials in the typical sense, but with higher requirements?
- what permissions and benefits do we offer engineers?

My proposed answers (my words aren't law or anything obviously):

Assuming you mean selecting who becomes an Engineer, I think that would be done at the application phase. Staff members would be able to anonymously vote for, against, or not at all on whether the member in question is "trustworthy enough" to become Engineer. If the vote for isn't above some threshold (not sure what specific amount it should be) then the application is denied. If the vote for meets or exceeds a threshold then the content is reviewed by a staff member and the application is approved or denied based on that.

Trials would consist of the same 2 parts as a Builder trial except the parts would be done somewhat differently. For the building part, the CPU (or equivalent) would be pre-built. The application would have the planned build included so the member would know in advance if the build was considered "complex enough" for the Engineer trial. After completing the build, the testificate would explain their build and give a demonstration. The other part of the trial is the questions, this part would test the testificates knowledge of CPUs in the same way Builder trials test ALU knowledge. It would ensure they know the parts of a CPU, what they do, ISAs, and other information relevant to CPUs.

The only benefit for becoming Engineer that I stated in the original petition was that they could run Builder trials (reviewed afterwards by a staff member). This would help potential Builders have more options on who could run their trial. Beyond that, I only had 2 other potential ideas that I figured wouldn't be as good: Extended world edit permissions and larger/more plots. Extended world edit permissions would be something like, automatically having world edit on other plots. It could be exclusive to build or extend to school and play. This is an enticing benefit but it also is a lot of power for one member to have, that's why I ultimately opted to not include it. As for larger/more plots, people who are Builder already have that. If someone can think of better benefits, I'm not against it, I just don't see any good options other than the ability to run Builder trials.

I agree with what Trecar said. Voting or not, just make sure it doesn't become a popularity contest.
Showcasing pre-built creations sounds to me like the best way to go, so you're not limited to how fast you can place blocks. It's not supposed to be a memorization contest either.
I also think there should be more options on what to build than just CPU. If someone showed up with playable chess and fully working game logic, that sure as hell would pass too.
Maybe create a list of categories of what's allowed.