If you are actively seeking staff, let people reapply before 3 months.

I have re-read the thread and dont see anything mentioned about this so I thought I would throw the community a suggestion.


Whenever the staff team is activley selecting new staff, everyone who is wanting to apply should have the oppturnity to, regardless if they have have submitted one in the past 3 months.


This way if you are looking for staff more than once in a 3 month period everyone has the oppturnity to apply for it thus giving staff the ability to choose the best based off of their criteria.

This is under the assumption that staff dont already take applications for less than 3 months into consideration, in which chance you might offer the position for somebody who has changed their mind.

 

I agree with you. I support exemptions for all applicants even if they have applied within a 3 month gap at times where staff are actively recruiting.

 

I think in cases where we are short on staff (for example, we only have 3 Globals), the staff should take a look at the more qualified candidates, even if it's been less than 3 months since they were denied. I'm somewhat borderline on this suggestion as a whole but I think it should be considered in rare cases. The 3 month rule is a somewhat good rule to have since I think a lot can happen in 90 days, but it can immediately disqualify even the best of candidates. I think the Upper Staff can have the jurisdiction to make sure that apps don't get instantly denied if it has been less than 3 months.

 

The only issue I see with them going over older applications is the fact that 3 months is alot of time. People may not want staff/something may have happened during that time to hurt their activity ect.

 

When promoting staff members look for the "best candidates" which is why I think this suggestion is good. Staff actively being recruited most likely means there aren't enough staff members so you would want to view as many applications as possible. For this reason I think waiving the 3 month rule would make sense when actively recruiting because it allows you to view more applications from quality applicants.

A user can make a lot of progress in a span of 3 months similar to what I have done to be honest which is why I can understand why this would work.

 

I both support this and have reservations at the same time. My reservations arise from staff having to re-sort through all the applications and while one application may not be time consuming, reading all of them, voting on them, and so forth is.

With this in mind, I support this under the stipulations this is the case when staff is actively looking for staff. In example, multiple moderators stepping down and there being a lack-of-moderators and re-visitation of previously denied apps/people denied recently may be sufficient. This because that just because someone was denied does not mean they were not staff material; rather, someone else just happened to make a better candidacy.

So yes, support and I'd even go as far as a full support since even if the applications are allowed, they will not really be looked at (I don't imagine?) till staff is needed anyway.

 

You bring up a good point.

Maybe a fix would be to only accept applications whenever the website is actively looking for staff. But there might be complications that arise from this aswell.

 

You summed it up way better than I was trying to lol. Exactly this.

 

Better solution is to just let the upper staff look at past applications, and if applicable, select a candidate from the aforementioned.

If they cannot find a suitable application, then they can allow re-apps before the allotted timeframe rule.

 

I agree with this way of looking at it.

If it's easier ...organise apps based on "yes" = promotion. . "Maybe" = revisit next time, "no" = wait three months. No would be.. not eligible.. not up to standards atm etc. Maybe is the ones that could be good enough but someone else was apparently a better candidate.

Side note.. @Hahanerd have you been applying? if so why do you get declined.... I don't get that >.>

 

But if somebody goes inactive or dosent want it anymore then youd be voting on nothing. Plus new information might come about such as new accomplishments for them to list or other stuff.

 

As such, staff can reach out to the candidates, and inform them they are revoting on said app, and if they wish to add anything to it.

If they're inactive, that's their own fault.

 

We recently had a private vote on this and looks like we'll be keeping it at 3 months in between applications. Feel free to discuss this topic more though, seeing some nice ideas.

 

My last app was denied three months ago for not being active enough. But, yes, I have been trying to come back.

 

^ My post on that other thread.

I don't see why you would deny good candidates and then not consider them at all for 3 entire months. At least section of the ones who were close but didn't quite make the cut so you can give them another consideration later on.

 

We expanded upon the conversation in SL and it does appear as if there is a candidate upper staff believes is qualified, then they can be re-examined; however, there is no overwhelming consensus to lift the 3 month change due to it being 3 months. As in, 3 months is not an exorbitant amount of time and how much is someone really going to change or show true growth (etc.) within a shorter time span (with 3 months not being that long to begin with).

Denied/Closed.