+- Forums - Open Redstone Engineers (https://forum.openredstone.org)
+-- Forum: Announcements (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-102.html)
+--- Forum: Announcements (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Build Trial Procedure Change (/thread-10233.html)
Build Trial Procedure Change - Nickster258 - 07-05-2016
A Student wants to trial. Said Student asks "What do I need to make in order to get accepted into the Build server?" The response to this question is almost always to be an ALU or an adder/subtractor pair. This implants an idea in said Student's mind that that is all that is required of the individual in order to get accepted into the Build server.
While not necessarily wrong, this begins to become an incredibly tedious task for the Staff to assess individuals, especially when almost the same exact thing is built trial after trial. Not only that, but it also gives the individual applying the "minimal requirements" to get in. This often times turns into more difficult Testificate conclusions as "just barely" is hard to assess sometimes.
In an effort to reduce the "just barely" and to make trials easier to conduct, there will no longer be any minimal requirements set by the Staff team other than the obligatory understanding of logical functions, such as OR, AND, XOR, etc. and other basic computational concepts such as logical circuits and the like.
This will take some of the weight off of the institutionalized system and put that back on the individual Staff member's assessment of the Testificate. Staff will conduct the trial as normal, assisting the Testificate where he/she needs help just as usual. That same Staff member will ask questions regarding what was made and will proceed to ask other questions confirming one's understanding of basic binary, logical manipulation, and other such computational aspects of Redstone.
Will this lower the "standards"? It is quite likely. Hopefully the Staff will apply their individual thoughts and personal opinions more often with Testificates and accept new players based on their own thoughts.
RE: Build Trial Procedure Change - PNWMan - 07-06-2016
(07-05-2016, 11:11 PM)Nickster258 Wrote: there will no longer be any minimal requirements set by the Staff team other than the obligatory understanding of logical functions, such as OR, AND, XOR, etc. and other basic computational concepts such as logical circuits and the like.
With something as drastic as this, and with setting the standard THIS low, we might as well just get rid of school! Because school will basically be an entire server to learn binary and logic gates, and maybe a few basic logic concepts (very vague wording with the "basic computational concepts such as logical circuits and the like"). What's the point of an entire server dedicated to that? We might as well just add the student rank to the build server and teach them binary, logic gates, and "logical circuits and the like" on there, since the standard is so low and so little needs to be learned.
I oppose this, I understand staff do a lot to help the server and need some time to their selves, but this is selfish on the part of the staff. You are lowering the standard, thus making the school server practically useless and the build server full of more clutter, just so you can have more time to yourselves? This isn't the solution; more active staff is the solution, and a more BROAD standard to get into the build server, not less. How would this help? Well, there would be more staff to trial, and since the standard would be a higher standard with more broad topics (not just ALU/multiplier build, but also knowledge of registers, PC, dataloop, maybe some CPU basics, or maybe something a little more obscure but still as compex), there would be less overall trials (since unwanted noobs will be weeded out with this noob filter) and more new builders who are PREPARED.
I hope you can see that this is not a good solution and there are other ways; there are other reforms that will bring about positive changes. And as far as "Hopefully the Staff will apply their individual thoughts and personal opinions more often with Testificates and accept new players based on their own thoughts," that sounds good in practice, but that is unfair to everyone because all staff members have different ideas as to what would be passing and what wouldn't be. Again, selfish! With a set standard that all staff must judge Testificates against, this makes it much fairer to Testificates.
Thank you for your time, and I hope this trialing issue can get sorted out to something that brings positive changes in the ORE community, and makes students and builders more productive.
RE: Build Trial Procedure Change - Nickster258 - 07-06-2016
This is focusing more so on the mentality for joining the server. Most people have the mentality that joining with just an ALU is sufficient. Some Students and current members have only built an ALU for their trial and that was the extense of their redstone knowledge at that time.
I personally hate the mentality of "just enough". It makes assessing Testificates hellish and it is just not a good standard to go by.
The hopes with this is that the standards are not lowered. In my individual trials, I will still ask about what dataloops are, how 2s complement works, basic computational aspects. This is just making the terms for entry more vague so as to force students to "get creative" if you will.
This was also something that Staff voted unanimously on.
RE: Build Trial Procedure Change - PNWMan - 07-08-2016
"Will this lower the "standards"? It is quite likely." "The hopes with this is that the standards are not lowered." -Well, how's that going to work?
""just enough". It makes assessing Testificates hellish and it is just not a good standard to go by." -I don't think that just an understanding of logic gates and some basic logic concepts is a good standard to go by, either!
" This is just making the terms for entry more vague so as to force students to "get creative" if you will." -Ok, I can see how being vague helps a little in this situation, so students don't have a preset idea of "other basic computational concepts such as logical circuits and the like," as it would make students come up with mostly their own ideas for the trial.
What will happen to school, will it be kept? What about more staff? How else will trials be reformed? And how will the trial system be made fair so it is not almost entirely subject to an invidual staff member's opinion? None of these were answered!
RE: Build Trial Procedure Change - Nickster258 - 07-08-2016
Of course School will be kept.
We do not necessarily need more Staff to trial people at the moment.
Trials will not be reformed again.
Being subject to individual opinion is not that bad.
To answer your first statement: I said it is "quite likely" because one Staff member may not be as harsh as the other. Idealistically, Staff members will ask similar questions as to what they did before. As I also said, I will ask about 2s complement, ask them to show me logical functions and their truth tables, and other generic questions to get an idea if the Testificate is competent. Hopefully the rest of the Staff ask similar questions.
Again, idealistically the standards will not change. The same questions that were asked before will be asked again. This is merely to force Students to become more creative and to explore other options, not just to get WorldEdit permissions.
The Staff team, as always, do not want the trials to be much easier than what we have set them. We still give our members highly trusted permissions, including everything within WorldEdit. Logically speaking, lowering our standards could lead to much a hell of a time fixing issues. We want to keep the user competence level high enough as to not make foolish mistakes. This has not always worked in the past, but it has done fairly well so far.
RE: Build Trial Procedure Change - optimo - 07-08-2016
As a newcomer, I think trials are important. I think the test-givers need some kind of syllabus to select from to ask trialing students to demonstrate. That is a selection from a number of possible rudimentary things that could be built to demonstrate an understanding of concepts. While that sounds like more work, it only has to be a one-time collaborative work, to establish a menu. You all know what could go on such a menu, and that leaves students having a loose sense of what might be required, while still having a bit of a pop quiz feel.
Personally I'd like to see more than binary arithmetic concepts covered, but those are foundational. Regardless of the subject, a knowledgeable test-giver can ask the right questions around those subjects, to gauge the students' comprehension. Building is important, but I think an interesting test would be to give the student a build that is incomplete or missing a piece of logic, and ask them to make it work.
Just like in real life, there are some that just aren't good test takers, but can demonstrate their understanding in different ways. You don't have to stoop too low to accommodate them all- I think dropping the testing requirement is probably too far - but some tweaking of this system can make it better. If you're taking suggestions I'll be happy to help brainstorm
For example: if the test giver could paste a schema of some test build that's missing a few key components; ask the student to assess the problem and prescribe or build a solution. Demonstrating an understanding. I may not be the only one that sees this, but just like with school quizzes, there's often cramming and rote memorization of the required material, in order to pass; that is not an understanding, and the OP alludes to that and he's right. The few trials I've spectated these are exactly what I'm seeing in the students, not an understanding but just doing what is required. In my biased view I think younger people are more likely to behave in that way and not comprehend just why trials are important and why they are given. That's not fair to say of all young people, but I find it's typical. Maybe the trial system needs an overstated creedo that will make it clear to newcomers that the aim is to become proficient at the subjects, not just to get a pass to the bigger server. Often this sentiment is not realized until they're trialing. Maybe there's an opportunity to send newcomers to a F.a.q or post that makes this clearer -well before they get into taking tests. Maybe there could be a quiz plot that has a series of the incomplete circuits for the student to solve. We could all collaborate to make such a course.
RE: Build Trial Procedure Change - newomaster - 07-08-2016
I disagree with the idea that removing a set standard would make the trial somehow easier to pass. Allowing someone to know the exact expectations (or, if you will, the "questions on the test") increases their capacity to prepare a static rehearsed trial entry, requiring less knowledge and experience than someone who is genuinely capable of improvising solutions to construction and verbal problems. I agree staff consistency is potentially dubious without proper training, experience, and moderation, but I see no reason why this change couldn't be implemented given adequate amounts of those. Let's not reduce the trial to an industrialized screening process; it's a trial, not the SAT. This change reinforces human interaction within trialing, ideally forcing the testificate to communicate ideas and ...think!
If anything, this change could be taken as a step in the OTHER direction on the difficulty spectrum. The trialee now has the challenge of impressing staff with original, interesting works and diverse knowledge. Sorry, but that generic ALU is just not going to cut it anymore... we want to see innovation! In this case, the school server is more useful than ever, since without actual experience and knowledge it will be painfully obvious a trialee isn't ready by how they react to unexpected answers and requests from staff. (I would encourage staff to ask trialees to modify/improve their builds after finishing them to further assess their knowledge). As someone who has personally trialed many many people, I can say from experience that our old requirement felt like a hindrance on my ability to adequately filter incoming members. I often felt the obligation to accept those who technically met our requirements but weren't ready in my eyes.
We desire the sort of creative individuals building on our server that develop new technologies and stick around for a long time, not those who will memorize the questions on the test solely to pass it and gain a status bump for a few days before getting bored and leaving forever.
So yea, if it wasn't clear, I support this change, at least until it proves that it lowers (or raises) our standards in a direction we don't want.
RE: Build Trial Procedure Change - PNWMan - 07-08-2016
Nickster post #5: "The Staff team, as always, do not want the trials to be much easier than what we have set them. We still give our members highly trusted permissions." -I'm glad to hear this and that you are keeping this in mind.
Optimo post #6: " I think the test-givers need some kind of syllabus to select from to ask trialing students to demonstrate." -I do think this might be a good idea to keep the staff fair and prepared to trial students.
"There are some that just aren't good test takers, but can demonstrate their understanding in different ways." "If the test giver could paste a schema of some test build that's missing a few key components; ask the student to assess the problem and prescribe or build a solution." -I agree that there should be a couple different ways to trial somebody, depending on their strengths. Troubleshooting is an extremely important skill to learn; all to often students (and even builders) will give up when something doesn't work, and they hardly look into what is causing it and what some solutions might be. Of course, one needs a fairly complete knowledge of whatever is not working properly to be able to troubleshoot it and figure out what is wrong.
"Maybe there's an opportunity to send newcomers to a F.a.q or post that makes this clearer" -I do think that the guides need some reform, instead of just telling newcomers how to apply for whatever server, there needs to be some emphasis on learning and some good information about the trial process.
Newomaster post #7: "I disagree with the idea that removing a set standard would make the trial somehow easier to pass. Allowing someone to know the exact expectations... increases their capacity to prepare a static rehearsed trial entry, requiring less knowledge and experience than someone who is genuinely capable..." -I suppose I do agree with this statement, that maybe removing some standards on the trial will actually cause Testificates to be more knowledgeable and creative.
"In this case, the school server is more useful than ever..." -While it would be nice if this were true, the only thing getting reformed here so far is the trial system. Our education system is stuck at the level it had declined to a year or two ago, which is sadly pitiful. I appreciate all that builders and teachers do to teach students, but our education system just sucks. There's this kind of paradox where there are so many great tutorial videos, but many are outdated (especially ones about old logic designs) and students want invididualized (or maybe with a few other students) lessons so they can have questions answered. Our lack of an education system forces students to go learn on their own, which is kind of a good thing because it means more self-motivated people, but at the same time many people just don't want to bother learning all of this complex stuff on their own- they don't know where to start!
I said I opposed this in my first post, but I would be open to this trial reform- As long as we update the guides and reform our education system. Those are necessary in order for newcomers, students, and testificates to not only understand, but be prepared for this kind of reformed trial. I am happy to see progress in ORE because I think it is a great server with a positive community.
As for education reforms, maybe I'll make a post regarding what the situation is now and how it could be improved, especially as one who has been around long enough to see how our education system has declined and one who (while active on ORE) has been a part of teaching students. EDIT: Here's the link to a thread I made about Our Education System: https://forum.openredstone.org/showthread.php?tid=10263
RE: Build Trial Procedure Change - Mar_Win - 07-10-2016
The motivation of this change seems to be to get students become more creative in their trial. I can totally understand the staff intention, because trialing transformed into a "building a 4-bit ALU" video in slow motion.
However, making the staff responsible for what is acceptable and what not won't change the students mentality on what to build. An ALU is still a demonstration of logical and arithmetic knowledge and there is no reason to say it wouldn't be sufficient enough if the student can explain it properly. That said I don't think we will see a change in students building behaviour with that change.
Newomasters idea is more promising. The idea of the student "impressing" the tester induces creativity in the student, because everyone built a RCA ALU so that won't be enough to impress a tester. But what would be enough?
Each staff member would think differently on that. We'll see if that will turn out in a big problem after inspecting some trials, but it would change something for sure.
The current changes, though, won't do, because it won't change the students bulding behaviour. This issue must be changed by a change of our education system as PNWMan already said.
> https://forum.openredstone.org/showthread.php?tid=10263
RE: Build Trial Procedure Change - tokumei - 07-10-2016
I will quote a post that I made during the staff discussion of this change that hopefully indicates my reasoning.
NonemuNinja Wrote:I am completely in favor of this change. I accepted a trialee a while back because he didn't build an ALU for his trial. He had no clue what to build, so I told him to come up with something that incorporates his knowledge of boolean logic. In only one hour he had a working Connect-4 game in which I could see a lot of innovation. Even though he didn't really show much knowledge of arithmetic in his trial, his application, which included a picture of a CPU, told me otherwise. Also, I feel like we need more innovators on ORE, people who are able to create things from scratch like him. That was my reasoning when I passed him.
A trialee should not be judged by what he has built, but the potential intellect he can give to this community. An example: if someone doesn't know what two's complement or an implies gate is but has an innovative way of thinking, I am willing to let him pass. I think it's more important to have a well-rounded community with many talents than a bunch of people who just learned how to build an ALU.