[DENIED] Allow commucating with applicants in moderator applications

Currently, your moderator application goes into voting via sectionals for the first week and gets moved the second week for upper staff to vote on. Usually upper staff already vote in the first week so the second week is just an additional week for them to vote the same they voted before.

For CDT applications your application gets posted in a private section of the forum, the CDT votes on it and at some point during the process you get a reflection of some concerns being voted in your application.

This isn't the case for moderator applications, and reasons such as being unfit for the team are quite often given if I can recall correctly.

Reasons such as "not being able to work well within the staff team" or being "unfit for the team" are reasons only the staff team could work on, not really the one who's applying because it doesn't state what changes are expected from him. As a result the one applying asks for staff members what they voted on, but usually the majority doesn't tell them what they voted or they just straight up ignore you.

My suggestion is to have a similiar stage as we have for CDT applications. Right now, in my opinion, the second stage of moderator applications really doesn't have much use, whereas this could be used as a stage where the one applying could respond to the concerns posted on his application. Ofcourse, those concerns would be listed anonymously, therefore making the moderator application process more user friendly and giving the one applying more insight on what he/she should work on.

 

[S]

I was under the impression applicants received feedback as to why they were not accepted.

Taking on feedback and criticism is already enveloped with being a Mod, so I see no reason why applicants shouldn't receive any feedback/criticism - if anything, it shows said applicant is willing to improve and learn from what they've been told, alongside increasing the overall standard and quality of applications coming through, as the relative applicants are aware of what qualities they need/what they need to work on.

 

I personally received a reasoning to why I didn't make the cut

Spoiler: feedback

But i know with CDT they ask you a direct question if there is a "concern" in your application, they directly ask you to provide any further information that can help aid in the changing of minds/increase your likelihood.

 

[ARTDEAL3R]

support.

this literally is 0 feedback and 0 examples given.

 

[S]

this literally is 0 feedback and 0 examples given.

There is feedback to an extent. Granted, lacking examples.

 

[Superfluous]

What exactly is your suggestion? Have things go something like the following?

1. User submits app
2. Staff votes for a week
3. Staff gives initial feedback - if positive, user is promoted; if negative, go to step 4
4. User has a week to reply to feedback and try to assuage staff's concerns
5. Staff has another week to decide on final votes

 

[ARTDEAL3R]

What exactly is your suggestion? Have things go something like the following?

1. User submits app
2. Staff votes for a week
3. Staff gives initial feedback - if positive, user is promoted; if negative, go to step 4
4. User has a week to reply to feedback and try to assuage staff's concerns
5. Staff has another week to decide on final votes

That seems pretty fair to me. I think the staff need to provide examples of what they're saying. 'In some of these posts *posts pictures* you were being quite hostile and we believe this may be a problem if you were to be on the staff team bla bla bla'.

 

Support. If users are going to be told they cant be a part of things they should also be given a valid example of the reason.

 

Support, the reasons given are usually very vague and u cant even discuss about it

 

Just to clarify. Specific examples are not main topic of this suggestion.

One of the CDT voting rule:

• Every CDT applicant has the right to defend themselves during the voting process should an issue or question(s) arise within the team that could potentially end in an application denial.

Now what it means in practice, is that if a user doesn't receive the majority of the votes in the "first round", we PM them our concerns and let them reply.

In some situations it can change the outcome, for example if user said something concerning in the past, we let them elaborate and explain.

Their reply is then quoted on a voting thread, CDT members read it and vote accordingly. I can say that in some cases the outcome is positive.

Now what I think Wortel suggests is adding this extra step into a Moderator Application.

I personally think that it's a reasonable suggestion. It could prolong the application process, but it's been proven to be successful for the CDT (IMO) and I think that we could try this for a trial period to see how it works out, therefore I support this suggestion.

 

Just to clarify. Specific examples are not main topic of this suggestion.

One of the CDT voting rule:

• Every CDT applicant has the right to defend themselves during the voting process should an issue or question(s) arise within the team that could potentially end in an application denial.

Now what it means in practice, is that if a user doesn't receive the majority of the votes in the "first round", we PM them our concerns and let them reply.

In some situations it can change the outcome, for example if user said something concerning in the past, we let them elaborate and explain.

Their reply is then quoted on a voting thread, CDT members read it and vote accordingly. I can say that in some cases the outcome is positive.

Now what I think Wortel suggests is adding this extra step into a Moderator Application.

I personally think that it's a reasonable suggestion. It could prolong an application process, but it was proven to be successful for the CDT (IMO) and I think that we could try this for a trial period to see how it works out, therefore I support this suggestion.

If it's been successful for CDT, then I think the staff application should incorporate this as well. Prolonging the process shouldn't be a concern; the process should take however much time is necessary to ensure the best decision is made.

 

[Superfluous]

I’d support adding the extra step mentioned above. Transparency can’t hurt, but I’m not sure if specific examples will be possible on all apps.

 

[Poat]

I’d support adding the extra step mentioned above. Transparency can’t hurt, but I’m not sure if specific examples will be possible on all apps.

It's not really about specific examples and more about possible concerns that have caused select members to vote no, and giving the applicant an opportunity to address their concerns.

 

[Superfluous]

It's not really about specific examples and more about possible concerns that have caused select members to vote no, and giving the applicant an opportunity to address their concerns.

... which is why I said I support adding the step BB mentioned above. Several users mentioned wanting more details on their apps, and my point is that I'm not sure we'll go as far as saying "here is the explanation for why each staff member voted the way they did" (re: Beast's and Artdealer's posts)

 

[ARTDEAL3R]

... which is why I said I support adding the step BB mentioned above. Several users mentioned wanting more details on their apps, and my point is that I'm not sure we'll go as far as saying "here is the explanation for why each staff member voted the way they did" (re: Beast's and Artdealer's posts)

Our points were favouritism and grudges. If someone’s actions are so detrimental to the staff team... surely there’d be plenty of public examples around of it...?

 

Several users mentioned wanting more details on their apps, and my point is that I'm not sure we'll go as far as saying "here is the explanation for why each staff member voted the way they did" (re: Beast's

I didn't ask for additional details, I specifically stated

I personally received a reasoning to why I didn't make the cut

This is enough evidence reasoning/feedback for me to improve on.
What i did state though, is that CDT has a system where they provide you with a statement which is

Every CDT applicant has the right to defend themselves during the voting process should an issue or question(s) arise within the team that could potentially end in an application denial.

Which i wouldn't mind seeing in the Mod app system.

 

Allowed but not required is what I'd like to see.

For example I'd fine with a specific staff member giving their feedback if asked about why they voted a certain way. But it may be too much to ask to compile every reason or general reasons for every applicant. I think it might be too general like "want to see more positive activity for longer" to be really useful.

 

I’d support it being utilized on a case by case basis but not required.

I’ve seen some CDT Applications with zero effort/trolls that get an immediate no from everyone on the team.

I can imagine there’s the same with the staff applications.

If the staff felt they needed additional information regarding an application I don’t see any reason why they couldn’t reach out before making a decision.

 

If it’s allowed but not required it won’t be done, considering doing so is not forbidden at this time aswell.

 

Worked well for CDT, I have even seen multiple apps that have gone through because of it, so I support.