[Denied] Update to staff applications.

[President]

Furthermore, I don't think forcing staff into a more extensive procedure is a good idea. It already isn't the fastest of procedures and adding a Q&A to it would slow it down even more. Enforcing procedural stuff for staff applications isn't the way forward. I think we should encourage it and we should encourage members of the community to reach out to staff and ask them for any feedback, but never force it.

 

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...

Apologies, I was making the assumption that you understood how the voting process goes. I forget that you’ve never volunteered for any sort of community position.

When someone submits an application, each voter is required to list yes/no and their reasoning why.

If they are declined, the team leader (CDT leader, or in staff application context, the global who posts the application for voting) contacts the applicant, lists the various concerns, and gives them an opportunity to rebuttal.

It’s easy, quick, streamlined, fair, and doesn’t require each staff member to contact the applicant directly.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that every voting member needs to contact the applicant so that he/she can rebuttal. Lol

I understand you have no context, so it’s not fair to expect you to understand. I’ve been on CDT for over two years and the rebuttal process is very easy and fair. It’s worthwhile and does not take any additional amount of significant effort.

 

[President]

Apologies, I was making the assumption that you understood how the voting process goes. I forget that you’ve never volunteered for any sort of community position.

When someone submits an application, each voter is required to list yes/no and their reasoning why.

If they are declined, the team leader (CDT leader, or in staff application context, the global who posts the application for voting) contacts the applicant, lists the various concerns, and gives them an opportunity to rebuttal.

It’s easy, quick, streamlined, fair, and doesn’t require each staff member to contact the applicant directly.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that every voting member needs to contact the applicant so that he/she can rebuttal. Lol

I understand you have no context, so it’s not fair to expect you to understand. I’ve been on CDT for over two years and the rebuttal process is very easy and fair. It’s worthwhile and does not take any additional amount of significant effort.

You didn't respond to any of my concerns to this suggestion so I'll summarise them again

-Applications will get (needlessly) longer, which is unattractive, given how long it already takes to wait for a mod reply. Literally an extra phase is added to the application procedure as you nicely explained.
-For close situations where staff is in doubt, mods already have the ability to reach out to members and ask them whatever they wanna know. I'm pretty sure they'll use this discretion if there's some stuff they want to clear up. So not many changes for this group. Making it mandatory to do a back-and-forth with a (salty) member that got denied is a waste of time and resources and should not be mandatory. So the suggestion will have a negative outcome if we assume this metric
-If you assume that staff isn't going to reach out to members during the application process because they don't feel like this and should be forced to do so, then why do you think they'd vote yes to this suggestion which literally forces them to do the thing they don't feel like doing (under your assumption)? They're volunteers, remember. Why make them do stuff they already might not want to do? I get what you're trying to achieve, but I think there are more pragmatic ways of doing so. Why is the incentivization of engagement worse than enforcement?

 

You didn't respond to any of my concerns to this suggestion so I'll summarise them again

-Applications will get (needlessly) longer, which is unattractive, given how long it already takes to wait for a mod reply. Literally an extra phase is added to the application procedure as you nicely explained.
-For close situations where staff is in doubt, mods already have the ability to reach out to members and ask them whatever they wanna know. I'm pretty sure they'll use this discretion if there's some stuff they want to clear up. So not many changes for this group. Making it mandatory to do a back-and-forth with a (salty) member that got denied is a waste of time and resources and should not be mandatory. So the suggestion will have a negative outcome if we assume this metric
-If you assume that staff isn't going to reach out to members during the application process because they don't feel like this and should be forced to do so, then why do you think they'd vote yes to this suggestion which literally forces them to do the thing they don't feel like doing (under your assumption)? They're volunteers, remember. Why make them do stuff they already might not want to do? I get what you're trying to achieve, but I think there are more pragmatic ways of doing so. Why is the incentivization of engagement worse than enforcement?

My posts addressed your concerns. I even referenced an existing process (CDT voting) in which the active rebuttal process is beneficial, easy, and effective. You’re basing your argument on hypotheticals and assumptions.

Your mind is clearly made up, I’m not going to keep arguing back and forth.

This is my last post on the matter. Others can read and make decisions based on our convo.

 

[President]

My posts addressed your concerns. I even referenced an existing process (CDT voting) in which the active rebuttal process is beneficial, easy, and effective. You’re basing your argument on hypotheticals and assumptions.

Your mind is clearly made up, I’m not going to keep arguing back and forth.

This is my last post on the matter. Others can read and make decisions based on our convo.

Oh, I'm absolutely swayable tbh. You just haven't convinced me so far

 

[Sypherz]

butthol

 

Super healthy and positive idea.

I support

 

Hello,

This was suggested back in February 2020 - [DENIED] Allow commucating with applicants in moderator applications
I'm linking the thread to see previous discussion and arguments.

This is not really needed for staff, IMO, however, I'm still down to give it a chance. We don't have that many applicants, so this wouldn't be too inconvenient.

I'm for giving it a try and if this addition to our current protocols turns out to be a waste of time, we can just go back to our current system.

-BB

 

[Departure]

How often do people even apply for mod? Do the mods even get paid? Seems like making them do more stuff for little benefit. Could this also slow down the application process or stop most staff from even voting in it? If they have to write up a reason why they were denied might bog it down.

[DENIED] Allow commucating with applicants in moderator applications

Based off this it seems people are given a general outline is that only some people who get that message? If mods have to give specific examples it would really slow it down and be way too much work imo.

 

How often do people even apply for mod? Do the mods even get paid? Seems like making them do more stuff for little benefit. Could this also slow down the application process or stop most staff from even voting in it? If they have to write up a reason why they were denied might bog it down.

[DENIED] Allow commucating with applicants in moderator applications

Based off this it seems people are given a general outline is that only some people who get that message? If mods have to give specific examples it would really slow it down and be way too much work imo.

I’d say less than expected amount of people are applying. Though voting is pretty straightforward.

Staff members do not get paid. Though signature rentals do earn you quite a bit.

I think you’re exaggerating the process. Getting applicants and properly working in staff members should have a very high priority. The communication between staff members and applicants matters. Now sure there’s only so much you can do, but based on my own experience I can say for certain it can improve.

Being a staff member is a volunteer position. If you can’t handle the ‘workload’ you can simply resign. Or be inactive, like so many do.

 

After discussion with the staff team, we have decided to deny this suggestion.