Welcome to another discussion blog-ish post. I would like to discuss a few concerns. DISCLAIMER: Unfortunately it seems people either didn't want to read the entire post and skipped to the suggestions part which I explained isn't viable so just going to put this out there the whole "blog" post is to address the following: - The way users may be discouraged from posting feedback - The way users act upon receiving no supports, including vengeful behaviour - Suggestions that have come from people in the community that aren't viable - My solution/advice // As it stands the no support rating gives users the ability to show that they oppose the promotion of a moderator. Further concerns can be aired in a reply. This doesn't seem like a real issue... right? Well it can start becoming an issue. Take for example Person A, who brings up a true/untrue incident and the applicant defends themselves. Person A then wants to respond however this isn't always a good option. Under the rules of flaming and off topic a response may be removed and any rebuttal may be considered an argument. Then we have the second most glaring issue with no supports... and in general, ratings. Revenge rating was a concept that has been removed as an offense. The premise was simple: if you were rated negatively and then found someone else's post to rate them negatively without good reason it was considered incorrect usage of the rating system. Unfortunately I have seen examples of this behavior in applications too. Person A no supported Person B due to a fight in game. Person B went to Person A's mod app and no supported them. Now this kind of action generally is done in hopes that the person that no supported first is equally brought down. Scraping the bottom of the barrel as it were to besmirch someone over a no support is not recommended. So If no support ratings are causing issues in moderator applications then how can the issues be stopped? Well lets look at a few options from the community that aren't so viable. One is to change the application system so only staff can respond to applications. However this can be quite unfair considering staff cannot always see what goes on and the community should be able to pick the users they feel represent them. Another option could be to not allow replies at all. Instead rely on ratings. Ratings are a good way to see the ratios of support to no support. While a revenge rating can be applied, it stops revenge posts that can hurt applicants. But again the issues here is stopping the community from expressing their opinions on their own representative. But those options take effort and big changes. There should be an easier way... This is my idea. Simply there a few lessons that you will learn in time - Bringing others down does not elevate you. - If you lie the truth will come and bite you in the butt - Moderation is not a competition. If you act like it is you already do not have the right attitude. The end goal is to help your community. - It is apparent if you are only helping out because of an application, consistency is key. It isn't about changing the system sometimes. It is about knowing the process and being informed.
I know some people too omg, also bulk ratings. Like when a friend group all rates the same person with the same rating.
Assuming that friends rate the same as some form of collusion or malicious intent is just another misconception. As long as the rating is fair and justified there is no reason why friends cannot have the same opinion. This is why it is a non issue. Same with friends who back each other up with positive ratings. It isn't rate abuse or a problem until they break the rules on rate abuse. If you and your 3 friends were talking about a post then decided you all opposed and wanted to rate it, and the rating was fair, would you like not being able to just based on the fact your friends already did? That would be incredibly bias. Similarly if you and your friends decide you liked another friends status would it be fair to not be allowed to rate it because they are your friends. There can be a tendency for people to discuss posts with each other prompting people to react. If you make a post on the forums then you open it up to scrutiny, judgement and possible ratings. Which is why I have the negatives I have right now. Thus you make that decision: Is what I say going to make me upset if people start rating negatively? Should I ignore it? Is it worth my time to get hung up on a few dislikes and disagrees? If you read the entire thing you would notice that is exactly what i've been advocating. In three different instances of my post I brought up that the community should have their opinion. I used two common ideas with their pros and cons, then said they were not viable, then suggested a way where no one has to change the system but can be more mindful of what applying for moderator is. This is not saying I agree with the two ideas I commented on otherwise I would have made a suggestion for them. This is only using them to look at the situation from more than one side. This outlines how giving your opinion may be deemed wrong in a mod application environment and how the rule affect this. Hence have a voice and their opinion Acknowledging the importance of opinions
Not really relevant to your support/no support concerns and issues, but I would like to see an interview process on top of the applications. We already have managers, so why can't they conduct a 3-5 minute interview with the potential candidate, this is would 100% ensure cyp has made a good decision with the promotion. Can't really see a downside with this idea, but if you come up with one please make your voice heard. What do you think Krissy.
It is relevant as what i'm mostly saying is there has to be a way for people to express opinions without being petty, and users feeling like they can have a say. I feel like interviews are a good idea however this poses an issue for staff outside the US and that is where the management staffs timezones are. If they can be flexible then it can work. But in the interview it can really put users on the spot where they have no choice but to be truthful and really think about their answers. It would allow managers to also get the truth or sides of a story in cases where things may be said.
Most opinions are biased, if not all, and adding the biased opinions of the Player base isn't helping the staff to choose new members. You don't send your application to the customers of the Company you want a Job in. The same way it isn't necessarily helping the community to hire someone everyone likes / knows / added enough colour to its application (being sarcastic on this one ). You know where this is going, right? Applications have nothing to do on the public place. If the applicant wants to announce in the discussion that he is applying for staff, he may do so, but isn't forced to like it is now. The staff has enough Tools in Hand to judge an applicant so it hasn't to rely on the Player base. TL;DR: make the mod app section invisible to non-staff, like the ban Appeal section. No random Ratings and unpertinent Feedbacks, no flaming, no revenge Rating either. All issues solved. I know the Players Need to feel like they have something to say in the choice of Moderators, but let's stop lying to them and face it: they haven't.
Nah if they can’t handle feedback they further demonstrate their lack of aptitude for a staff position so I would say rather, it’s a positive thing in all ways, real staff material will act maturely and handle it well no matter what, and people who aren’t won’t. Broken wrist pardon punctuation grammar
Fait point. However, mod applications aren't the only places where bad personality shines through. Otherwise, there wouldn't be negative feedback on mod apps in the first place, would it? And of course, staff would also be able to give feedback to the applicant in a hidden section and could judge their reaction to it as well, there is no need for the player base for that. Sorry for your wrist, get well soon
