[Denied] Update to staff applications.

In the CDT application, we have had right to defend ourselves, which is when your app doesn't do quite well as to reach a passing rate, We allow the member of the community who has applied for CDT the chance to reply to some of the concerns that CDT has written and believe or not there have been many times were user have gotten through with this on to CDT, my suggestion is simple and to add this staff applications.

Note:
BEFORE SOMEONE SAYS IT I HAVEN'T APPLIED FOR STAFF RECENTLY, JUST CAME TO MIND WHEN I WAS DOING CDT STUFF! (staff can confirm if they like).

 

Eh, I guess a rebuttal would be fine so you can make a better case or answer to feedback.

I think better feedback overall would generally be better for denied applications.

I’ll support this suggestion.

 

I'll support, it should also be noted that in previous times the whole "you can get feedback on your pardons, to then hopefully appeal better next time around" is also frowned upon and taken stupidly

 

[Bert]

I support, I like this idea.

 

Support obviously, though I'm fairly certain this or something similiar has been suggested or brought up, possibly even by me, but was denied quite quickly since staff seems to have (had) a liking for denying applications (and suggestions made by me).

I wouldn't even be opposed to having something like this for pardons aswell, but I might be the only one.

 

[Robiiiiin]

Why wouldn't this be a thing?

Super support, should always be able to "defend" yourself.

 

This will be denied regardless of all your support boys, admins will promote whoever they want and this directly interferes with that.

 

I support this, previous years where staff applications weren't even a thing, staff would just "nominate" people and we'd have a discussion about it and sometimes things would be brought up that we weren't 100% sure on, but I believe it swayed some peoples votes on certain people.

I believe the user should be able to comment or have the chance to answer any questions staff members have, or any concerns. Kind of like a second interview process.

 

I support this.

I believe that yes/no vote decisions are largely decided upon before a voter even reads the application. I don't see this enabling much legitimate change. However, I do think that it's fair and should be implemented.

With that said, I'd imagine there have been instances in the past where the votes were split and an opportunity to comment, provide an explanation, or rebuttal could have led to a different outcome.

 

I don't see this impacting negatively so I support. Also agree with what is said above in most comments.

 

I support the suggestion, but I feel staff will object.

 

I think the application template could use an update in general as I don't think our current scenario's are enough to determine if someone has enough knowledge about how we operate.

I don't believe implementing a chance to defend yourself would make much of a difference but at the same time I don't see how it would do any harm.

 

Agreeing with all of the above.
Support

 

[President]

I do think this is makes the process more 'transparent', just wonder if it's practical and if has any impact on the outcome

 

I do think this is makes the process more 'transparent', just wonder if it's practical and if has any impact on the outcome

The right words in the right time can affect a lot in my personal opinion

Sure, there will be cases where nothing can be done, but on cases where it's close, a good chat can make the difference

 

[President]

The right words in the right time can affect a lot in my personal opinion

Sure, there will be cases where nothing can be done, but on cases where it's close, a good chat can make the difference

Mods can always reach out to applicants via discord to ask additional questions if they're curious about something. This is an option and the current application process doesn't exclude this. I don't see why this has to become a mandatory thing for every application, because that seems exhaustive in my opinion (especially if mods are forced to do this for situations where the applicant is very far from getting accepted)

no support

tldr; current model is most efficient because discretion is healthy
-for absolute yes situations, mods can decide to do as they please
-for close situations, mods can already reach out via discord and ask additional questions
-for absolute no situations, mods won't be swayed by a Q&A and making this mandatory is exhaustive/just a waste of resources/time

 

Mods can always reach out to applicants via discord to ask additional questions if they're curious about something. This is an option and the current application process doesn't exclude this. I don't see why this has to become a mandatory thing for every application, because that seems exhaustive in my opinion (especially if mods are forced to do this for situations where the applicant is very far from getting accepted)

no support

tldr; current model is most efficient because discretion is healthy
-for absolute yes situations, mods can decide to do as they please
-for close situations, mods can already reach out via discord and ask additional questions
-for absolute no situations, mods won't be swayed by a Q&A and making this mandatory is exhaustive/just a waste of resources/time

I disagree. There have been several instances where the rebuttal function of CDT applications has led to people changing their votes.

Insisting that adding this to the application process would be "exhaustive" is also grossly exaggerative. Furthermore, it's not like there's twenty applicants a week for staff positions. It would take very little effort.

 

[President]

I disagree. There have been several instances where the rebuttal function of CDT applications has led to people changing their votes.

Insisting that adding this to the application process would be "exhaustive" is also grossly exaggerative. Furthermore, it's not like there's twenty applicants a week for staff positions. It would take very little effort.

This rebuttal function is not exclusive to the suggestion. Staff can always reach out and do a Q&A. I think they should be encouraged to do this, but to make this mandatory is just exhaustive and not necessary, because they'd have to do the Q&A with people who have absolutely zero chance of making it.

 

This rebuttal function is not exclusive to the suggestion. Staff can always reach out and do a Q&A. I think they should be encouraged to do this, but to make this mandatory is just exhaustive and not necessary, because they'd have to do the Q&A with people who have absolutely zero chance of making it.

Making this mandatory does exactly that; encourages it. Very few staff members will take the time to directly contact an applicant and ask questions. Furthermore, even less will then share those answers with the entire voting group. As someone who has seen the rebuttal process in action, I disagree whole-heartedly that it is not necessary.

Your argument is hinging on the notion that adding this function would be cumbersome or require lots of additional work, which is simply not the case.

 

[President]

Making this mandatory does exactly that; encourages it. Very few staff members will take the time to directly contact an applicant and ask questions. Furthermore, even less will then share those answers with the entire voting group. As someone who has seen the rebuttal process in action, I disagree whole-heartedly that it is not necessary.

Your argument is hinging on the notion that adding this function would be cumbersome or require lots of additional work, which is simply not the case.

You're contradicting yourself.

If very few staff members take the time to directly contact an applicant, why would they accept this suggestion which makes it mandatory for them to do so? Remember, staff ultimately decides whether or not this suggestion goes through...