i don't think the last two years have been a failed experiment in staff moderation or structure. will write out a more thoughtful reply to this post since i haven't done that yet
Sythe should make someone his spokesperson as he seem to have no time.
oftentimes this ends up being an admin thing, but i agree. arguably the most important thing in the crazy push towards/right after xen was richard's activity, and that has declined recently. i would be happy with a "here's what i'm up to this week"-type thing like he used to post in the spam forum (or sythe news
)
Doesn't necessarily have to be a news post. Com General ..Introductions/Farewells possibly? Just when there's small updates to the staffing team like an addition of a section.
i'm all for transparency on most things, but staff votes are sometimes hard to explain simply. i think the shortest summary is that shall skill was recently demoted, an old staff member asked to come back, and richard (and most of the rest of us) thought we could give him a trial period run without much risk. generally, ex-staff have an unofficial "you can come back if you've left on good terms" kinda clause they can trigger whenever they want.
Confused as to why a member was promoted who hasn't posted in almost 2 weeks (Oct 6, and before that it hasn't been since the beginning of September) and hasn't been on in 4 days.
Not trying to criticize just trying to get reasoning why someone with such little activity was promoted. Not only that, but he was promoted to 2 sections instead of the regular one?
the expectation is that activity will pick up rapidly post-promotion. if that doesn't happen, i think we'll be quick to demote as we have been recently. and, as mentioned, ex-staff can come back with more than one section
I don't mind seeing ex-staff returning to a position since they're most likely going to be active and know what they're doing but I don't like how they're being given a position when they've done nothing to re-integrate with the community.
DarkSpark hasn't been active (other than short bursts of activity a few days a month recently) for 4 and a half years. I think recent activity should be considered for all applicants, not just new ones. If I only barely recognise his avatar from back when I bought membership on Sythe in 2011/2012 then I doubt many people active today know who he is.
That said I agree with the vast majority of staff decisions and it's nice to see that everyone (from an outside perspective) is being open to change.
i agree that recent activity is important and was obviously not the strongest part of DS's application. that said, ex-staff are generally allowed to come back, and as mentioned above, if things aren't working out in the trial period, i think demotion is totally an option.
Promoting someone who has been inactive for 4+ years and that only recently started posting again (1-2 posts every other day in the last few weeks) is definitely a step in the right direction
Edit: It's a total slap in the face for those of whom are active on a daily basis, particiapate in the community, and are dedicated to revive this site again, js
i agree with this, generally speaking (note comments above). many of those active people have applied for staff and were turned down recently. others may have an easier time explaining why they vote against these sorts of promotions; i generally tend to support them unless the users are narrowly involved in the market and not much else. i hope that promotions/demotions become a more fluid process in the future because, in my view at least, promoting someone ineffective isn't really that big a deal to the site overall. i also hope that people give newer users a chance; generally the super-active folk pre-mod status (read: astro, chloe, grave in the past, etc.) have been great promotions.
So the staff automatically gets market moderator on top of another section? I'm just confused as to why two sections were dedicated to him (regardless of having the voting process). I don't see why activity wasn't taken into consideration. I understand there is the "probationary period", but really, there are other members, even ex-staff like SuF for instance (whether the staff dislike him or whatever, he is an intelligent member who can bring a lot to the table), who are more actively willing to help Sythe grow. Really, all this promotion does, and no offense to the member who was just promoted, but all it does is make members unsatisfied and causes moral to go down.
I'm not trying to be negative, but activity should play a requiring role in the voting process, such as certain guidelines on how active they are.
But I guess a lot has changed since I last was on. I trust the staff's judgement and I don't want to make an ordeal, just some unanswered questions I guess..
definitely a fair point to bring up, especially the morale reduction aspect. i hope that other users dont get demoralized by anyone else's promotion... anyway, given that applications are voted on holistically, i think this may be hard to implement. do you have any suggestions in mind? ">200 posts in each of the past 3 months"-type things have obvious shortcomings. i would say "let community members vote on staff members too" but that's been unpopular with staff in the past. maybe "let community members vote on moderator applications for a week before they go to staff lounge?"
The only way the moderators can improve, is if you give them something to improve on. Even then, you're giving constructive feedback on the situation, or suppose to. The whole point of even making feedback posts is to give them your opinion on something and give some examples on how it could possibly be improved. Telling the staff "you guys suck" and not giving any explanation isn't the way to go.
If you've posted before on why you feel this way, my apologies I have not seen it, so if you could refer me to it that would be great.
appreciate the fact that others see the point of this thread! for example, the fact that half a dozen people brought up concerns over a recent application suggests (quite clearly) that people want clarity and, perhaps, a say in things like this going forwards. so i think we should do something about that, and the best way to find out what people are thinking is, unsurprisingly, to ask them!
Ultimately, the staff run this site, but without the members there would really be no point to the staff. With that being said, it works both ways -- without the staff, there would be no moderation happening. So, we both depend on each other. The reason why I am saying this is because I have seen a lot of unconstruction feedback which doesn't really help anybodies situation. If you think some members of the staff suck, then great, you can tell them but you need to give them a reason why they suck and an example how they can improve. I'm here to tell you that both, the staff members and members here aren't the highest quality they can be -- they can improve.
This mostly pertains to giving/receiving negative feedback.
Staff - I understand that a lot of feedback may not pertain to how you feel about yourself, or if you think someones feedback is "wrong" or unjust, but don't go on defending yourselves. Even if you have a grudge with members (in cases with SuF), allow yourself to listen to what they have to say and really think about it. You guys don't get paid, so really, you don't have to listen to any of what I am saying, but you are staff members because you care and support this site (hopefully that's the reason, and not because you're narcissistic and enjoy the power). Go in with peoples feedback and listen to what they say. Instead of getting defensive, allow yourself to see it as an opportunity to grow. I just see a lot of people, not just staff, get called out on something and not take ownership and just get completely defensive. With that being said, take feedback in without being defensive and be thankful that people want to see this site to grow, so they're working with you to help that happen.
Members - When giving feedback, don't point out personal flaws or attack the staff personally. Obtain a situation, and address it accordingly. Don't give vague feedback saying "you suck at moderating". Be more respectful and go into detail. An example of this would be, instead of saying "you suck at scam reports", you could go into detail about where they could have went wrong and give them ways that the situation could have been addressed differently.
Basically what I am trying to get at is: we need to work together to help this site grow. I like coming on, and I am sure you do too. The staff have been chosen for a reason (for the most part) and that's to help keep the site up and running, while having every section of the forums smoothy moderated coming together as a whole. For us to keep this site running, we need to have an attraction to new members and an incentive for older members to stay. We need to work together to keep this site up, and it all starts with having our forum leaders given proper feedback so they can improve themselves and address it professionally.
I hope this makes a little sense to everyone. It's only my opinion.
would sticky this post if i could
thanks for the mature approach to things
