Have any questions? Ask HERE!

If we have questions, we'll contact you. If accepted, you'll be asked to join, if denied you'll be given feedback where you can improve on.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel like there really isn't much clarification on that thread as to what the duties of the mods actually require. The thread mentions again what you're looking for as far as qualities of the person applying/looking to be a mod, but not specifically how you would be carrying out the duties. Is this something that'd be noted after an application is accepted or is there a possibility of a bare-bones explanation of sorts perhaps?

I.E. would the "runescape mod" cover only runescape markets and thus be a subset of a market mod, or would they just moderate the actual runescape section, and not runescape markets at all?

Or, what is the "something for all" mod, and what section are they in charge of so to speak?

If part of the question is unclear, feel free to say so.

 

They have moderator perms over a specific section.

So a community moderator would have all of his perms in the "our community" section but not elsewhere on the website, This includes things like opening/closing stickying threads, dealing with reported posts from that specific section ect

 

On top of that they deal with scam reports, disputes, pardons, discussions in staff lounge, and generally represent the site

 

I was told staff can abstain on mod applications, due to x or y reasons, such as if staff are close friends, or because of bias or conflict. Staff would apparently know that they're viewpoint would be biased.

It makes me question that what if said person applying is friends with all staff members, or has conflicts with all staff members? Would all staff then abstain on voting on mod applications? Why is abstaining allowed?

I personally view it as staff should not abstain on voting for mod applications based upon biased or conflict. You are staff members, and you should learn to not let your bias or conflicts result in you abstaining, simply give a view and response as to why you feel the person is or isn't good for the job based on the application they give you and your opinion of them within the forum. (not your sole interactions, read on)

It should not be so much specifically about your interactions with them i.e. your personal opinion can be stated separately. You should be able to do your research based upon said person, based upon how they are in the community, not based upon how much you like them. I personally view it as childish to abstain based on your bias or conflict views.

What about in the circumstances where a staff member has an opinion based upon another staff member or community member when they pick people to be staff (not through applications) for promotions. Is this then not based on bias views? Are you not being biased by not suggesting a person you have conflicts with? There is so much bias with how the system used to be or is when it is not through applications, so why are you then allowed to abstain on applications? Why can you not leave your personal opinions aside and try to view an applicant with how they are based on their applications or personality within the community? Without your complete bias/conflict interactions coming into play and making you unable to vote on an application.

 

@Sonia I think it would be incredibly rare for an entire staff team to abstain based on a friendship with an applicant. Staff will have their own reasons for abstaining, but I think most are business-related (association) or a member they don't wish to have anything to do with. It's rare to see staff abstain on something and incredibly rare for more than one to abstain. You make some good points though, which is likely why it doesn't happen as much.

 

Why did only Ryan read my application?

 

I read your app.

 

Can you actually prove it?

 

We can, yes. But if we did, it would be leaking.

Everyone on the staff team read it. Everyone posted and voted on it also.

 

No, it wouldn't. There is a very easy way to prove it and since you aren't it makes me think no one actually read it.

 

Man, go PM @Sythe and ask him to take a screenshot of the poll, or who voted on it/read it. Maybe he'll do it so you have some closure. Idk.

 

Maybe we should have a spot on the template for the people who are reapplying for them to list their previous deny reasons and what they have done to improve/correct their oppturnities.

 

Upper staff has access to all the applications and the denial reasons in the Mod App Archives (Moderator Applications Archive)
We'll check it if needed

 

Oh dont worry i figured that.

I just assumed it would be beneficial for the applicants to show they are understanding and activley working on whatever oppturnities they have to improve.

 

I don't need closure. I need the staff to admit even the smallest fault in literally anything and perhaps actually prove they actually read my application and back up their accusations with proof instead of just ignoring me.

 

Hey guys, I know this has died down a tad, but I was curious about the whole concept of the way feedback was given.

Would it not be a better idea to actually give those who applied, quotes of the staff discussion/poll. (I didn't apply nor received feedback, so I don't know how it went down, but just from above I'm curious)

I don't know what I mean basically, however put aside the whole concept of leaking staff stuff and view it how an applicant who got denied feels. A very menial (poor) understanding of exactly why they were denied. The feedback that was given is a general concept of what was stated in the voting, right? (Based on what I've seen). If for instance those who got to the second stage of voting were denied.. were they given an extensive understanding (quotes of staff) as to why? Or what is the whole agenda with not wanting to give out that information (if it wasn't given out). How about having a agreement with individuals who applied and want full understanding, to state they wont relay that information on wards. They can use it to better themselves, and try to make better communications and relationships based upon that feedback.

A few issues I think as to why it wouldn't be done is because;

"Staff lounge leaking"
Attacks from applicants to staff?
Staff may feel insecure about their feedback?
Staff don't want to accept fault?
Limitations in understanding why staff feel that way/have viewed a person that way.
Limitations in general feedback (isn't always good for individuals to better prepare second time around).
Staff will feel like people will annoy them/lick their.. to try and get a better opportunity?

Reasons why it could be good, I think;

Removes the limit of understanding staff and their feedback.
Rather than general feedback, give full feedback.
Gives a chance for applicants to actively work on their faults.
Staff scrutiny by community I feel is somewhat good, because you guys can actively work on this/faults.
Better communication between staff/community members(potentials of becoming mods)
Shows applicants you actually read or didn't read their app effectively.
I.E. I expect your feedback to refer to main points in the application.

Am I over thinking this?

 

Do you need to spend X amount of time on sythe to moderate a forum/ site? Would limitations such as a full time job sway the voting process?

 

No set requirements, honesty is appreciated.

 

Got a few questions regarding this.

EDIT: Staff process page actually answered question 2 so you can skip that one.

1. So there's basically no requirements in general but let's say if I were to apply, Would experience be needed for a certain section, etc. or is it all just kinda entry positions?

2. Is there a limit on who can apply like DnT, Person who is just a regular user, Donors, etc? I feel like there would be a limit on this.

3. The part where everyone has/have to have a clean record/been active for a good chunk of time. How long would you say a good chunk of time would be?

4. Is there an age requirement or any other hidden requirements similar to this question?