Why does the number of posts matter so much ... 1,500 posts in 6 months? I think, having the right attributes and attitude is far more important.




Hm... 6 months? I think it should be more because people do become sick and tired of createBlog after 5 months. Look at those people who were once addicted to cB and suddenly, they vanish. Maybe, it is ... because of the official designer membership that doesn’t make them worry too much about posting. Who knows?

Maybe, it's time to change the official designer's requirement for those who wanted the title after October. (More fair for previous designers? Do you like that? )

im glad you brought that up
it reminded me
i don't think posts should matter to people who are not applying for people staff. i have seen alot of really qualified people who help out in the resource center who wouldn't have enough posts.

people staff however......965 posts >_> thats 5 posts everyday for 6 months,,,actually i think that should be the minimum amt of posts woosh!

i see no reason to cut out people based on how long they've been a member.

6 months is a long time.

just get rid of those limits. it's not like any newbies are going to get voted for anyways. no need for any arbitrary filters- whoever's going to select mods can do that themselves.

get rid of them?...
there would just be more angry people that didn't get picked, it'd also make things seem less organized.

maybe 5 months would be more fair, however someone could of joined five months ago and made their first post a month before, so i think we should stick with the post count

Yeah, I don't think an arbitrary length of time is necessary, either. We have other criteria for being a mod, right? Active in the community, helpful, mature, responsible... If a person can show that they fulfill those qualities, why does post count and length of time matter? It's entirely possible a person spent time at cB before registering, or has been active in other communities and thus knows the protocol of a webboard fairly well. Also, just because a person doesn't post all the time in a bunch of forums does not mean that she isn't active. Generally speaking, I only post when I have something worthwhile to say, but I read most threads and spend a lot of time poking around.

One thing about cB that many seem to place too much emphasis on is length of time on the boards and post count, neither of which are truly accurate indicators of a person's contributions to the forum and general maturity.

True, you don't need an arbitrary length of time, but having one wouldn't do any harm. You also need a reasonable post count to prove yourself worthy. I don't think it should be high up in the thousands or anything and 6 months is a bit too long, but you need an amount of time to show that you are capable of fulfilling mod duties.

it would.

say you have a six month limit.

then michael here, although most would agree he's qualified to apply for a staff position, would not be able to.

i've know people who at less than one month seemed much more intelligent and mod quality than others who ahve been on cB for over a year.

join date is a worthless judge, and it's simply an arbitrary limit imposed.

and i think one month and 250 posts are plenty time to form an opinion about someone.

As I said, it should be something reasonable. For the length of time and post count. Six months, which is unreasonable, is far too long in my opinion as I've said.

I think it should be two months. Then at least the people have time to get familiar with the members enough to know about them and whether they're going to stay or not.

Six months is a long time. A lot of us haven't been on for six months. It's rare that people stay a really long time. I mean, I've been here a year and a half and I've seen my share of people leave that were likely to stay. Kathleen for example. She loved CB and she was here for a looong time, but she left unexpectedly. Just because someone's been a member for six months doesn't mean they automatically stay. There's no telling when they actually started posting. I didn't start posting until a month after I joined.

really, i don't see how someone who's only got 200 posts and has joined for only a month will get chosen for a mod anyways, so i really don't see the point of an arbitrary limit...

Well yes, but if we don't set a limit, people will complain about someone knowing what they're talking about no matter how long they've been here or however many posts..

Didn't you see that topic illyria made in Feedback about the skin quality and such?

It will happen, and setting a limit prevents it. It's letting people know that they shouldn't apply until they're ready and that if they do apply with such a low amount of posts and/or not too much activity, they won't get hired.

setting a limit is implying that people with higher post counts and earlier join dates are superior.

Well that isn't the case. Generally, in any situation, people who have been there for a longer amount of time and have more posts than others are more familiar with the place and the people. This is fact. It's not true to every single individual case, but most of the time, it is true. In any case, that is what mods need to do their job. If people are really serious about wanting to be a mod for the sake of being a mod and not the title, they will deal with the fact that they need to meet the general set requirements.

and i doubt whatever method we use to select mods will churn out mods who don't know the community.

this isn't the only screen. removing it just means more people are screened out later.

But why do we need to remove it? Why give people false hope? Then they won't be disappointed simply because they didn't have enough posts/time.

but they should still be considered.

anyways, you can put that i the hiring paragraph.. like...


it is recomended that you have been a memeber for at least 2 months so that the selection committee knows you. You can still apply if you haven't been a member for 2 months, but you'll have two kinds of chances. fat and slim

How is that any different than making it a requirement? In fact, that's more discouraging..

We don't need to change every little thing about CB..some things are fine the way they are..

well, i see nothing with just getting rid of this arbitrary limit.

i mean, most people would have the common sense that they're not going to be a mod the second day at cB...

Have you not seen newbies post in the first week that they would make a good mod and are all like "i'll work on it hehe!" and all?

People would apply and be disappointed being turned down all the time until they get the right requirements. Setting this requirement would make them say to themselves "Oh, that's what I need to do".

and then once they get those requirements they still get turned down and they're like darn.

it's just delaying newbie crash.

But they won't apply in the first place if they don't have the requirements.

but getting the requirements makes them no better a candidate for modship.

Yes it does. That's why they're there. Of course, not in every single individual case, but usually when people have more posts and/or have been here longer, they make better mods.

Hm. What about putting those so called “future mod” in a another group as label? Let them stand out in the crowd and prove themselves that they can provide dedications and contributions to the community for a month or so with no moderator power yet. The roles of moderator should be given and followed too! The moderators, half moderators, and administrations will decide whether they can actually lend them the power.


This idea came out of my creativity.



But, I’m afraid that this person would get so sick and tired of createBlog after awhile so... he/she/it might decided to ruin our community. Everyone would panic just like when createBlog was hacked about a couple of months ago.




*Drools* banana.

uhhh..no. Nice try though.

Three pages and no resolve. Yessssss!

I personally like the idea of minimum requirements for a mod. Its just like in real life when you are applying a job and have to met certain citeria in order to be considered, nothing different here. Maybe 6 months is a bit much....I see 4 as plenty of time to prove yourself a worthy candadite. Two more of my cents.

Hahaha

no.

I should be more open, but honestly...just no.

I think the 2 month rule sounds good. Any longer would be excessive, but they should be here at least that long to get to know things. It's not hard to stay for 2 months- I joined a forum in July intending to only post once, and I'm still on there now.

but didnt we actually slightly consider doing that for certain people last time...not last time the time before-giving someone a trial run as a mod and seeing how they do (accept they wouldnt have backstage access or something like that) . . .

^exactly. you know, we dont' need to change everything and bind every little thing with laws.

can someone explain to me why an arbitrary limit would be good?

I already did, were you reading what I was posting?

yea.

i meant can anyone explain why an arbitrary limit is better than just letting the selection process take care of it.

i know you explained stuff about dissapointments and stuff... but that's not call for a two month limit... that'd be like two weeks.

Well then can you explain to me what's so bad about a limit? Why it's so important that it be changed?

becuase just because you've only been a member for a month doesn't mean you're not fit to be a mod.

and if you're not known by then, i doubt the selection committee will choose you.

the two month limit would be useful, if for nothing else, keeping the applications tidy.

i mean, as you said, the mods are unlikely to hire anyone who's been here for such a a short amount of time, so why have their applications getting in the way.

perhaps we should have a vote.

all those in favour of a two month time limit say 'aye'. all those opposed say 'nay'

aye.

Aye.

2 months sounds good. yup

^

aww... if you say 'aye' you can pretend to be a pirate...

ok, aye!

Nay. i say 2 months is too short. Atleast 3 or 4.

well, i'm pretty sure i can't vote. i'm not on the committee.

but 2 months is arbitrary and too long. one month would be a nice compromise tho...

Two months is NOT too long.

well, it looks like the vote's going to come down to two months.

2 months, ninja ... please.

hahaha....cute.

But I say nay.. Its a bit unlikely someone would get hired after being here for only 2 months, especially compared to candadites that have been here a bit longer, proven themselves longer, and contributed longer. Now 3- 4 months would be more significant, imo.

aye

yes, it's unlikely someone ony here two months would get hired. it's unlikely, but possible. so why extend it longer?

Michael's been here not too long...2 1/2 months I think? Maybe 3? Most of us considered him an extremely good canditate.

I think 2 is good. It gives a person enough time to be noticed and prove themselves.

^ Michael has been here a little longer than that, since may 2005 I believe.

Well, the first time he applied he had only been here for 2 months. We had a vote on a new People Staff and he was second (to you) sooo..

^ I know that, I was just letting you that he's been here a while currently. You didnt specify which hiring you were talking about. So....yeah.