alright, so kiera makes a good point as quoted above. hiring is what everyone disagrees on. lets discuss what we think here.

Wait...you're talking about disagreements on the way people are hired?

^Yes, there have been disagreements in the past on the way members are hired to staff. Mostly concerning more member involvement.

First off, I like the idea of endorsements and also regular member endorsements because it gets both the mods and regular members involved. I'm against community voting for reasons stated in the cb revolution thread. I think mods voting who should be staff members has some faults as well. As far as involvement of the community in hiring, I would be up for some kind of thread stating who the members think would be great and reason for why some candadites would not make good mods that would play factor in the promotion of mods. I'm still brainstorming. All of these are just opinions that I have currently and are subject to change.

I think it would be a good basis to know what the current practice is for moderator selection, since it seems to be a complete mystery to non-staff members.

The way we choose mods this last hiring was by a vote. We put who we thought was the most qualified applicant and why.

The last hiring was done between head staff and admins. There was reject list, neutral list, and accept list. If you were on the accept or neutral list you became a mod. For example, if one mod put a member on one list as neutral and other staff put the same member on his reject list, he member wouldnt not become a mod. I remember Roxy saying something about. I was not a mod at that time though so there may be be more details I'm missing.

im not really for endorsements. people are just doing it now days to be nice to their friends, even if they dont think they are qualified.

Me too.

In most situations, it turns out to be a popularity contest. And the most popular is not always the most qualified.

While I understand the idea behind the endorsements, I think they're useless. People honestly just endore their friends, with little regard towards whether or not they'd actually make decent mods.

Commnuity voting = popularity contest. Horrible idea.

Anything left up to a vote, however, is a matter of a popularity contest, to some extent. It could be that the mods voted on all new staff members, but then a clear argument could be that the candidates who are most popular with the moderating staff would be the winners.

Having said that, I like the idea of allowing community members to comment on candidates for staff, but I don't think the hiring process should be bound by such polling. Call it a non-binding election if you will. I would agree that generally speaking, the staff have the best knowledge of who makes the best staff, not the community as a whole.

As an example, I'm an admin on another forum. From time to time, mods step down, and we replace new ones. We sometimes put it to a vote to get feedback from the community, but the process is usually undertaken by the three admins, with heavy input from the moderating staff. We generally hold that as seasoned staffers, we know what's best for the community.

For those who read the first paragraph and last and skip everything in between, I'll sum up my post by saying that non-binding community elections are a good way to find new staffers, but the key is that they should be non-binding.

^ Very well said.
And I can see your point on the endorsement thing, Nicki and Spencer.

If it's the staff that mainly picks new staff, what is the basic criteria for which staff members look in candidates?

Allowing members to comment on mod selections turned out really badly, when Dani was modded.

But maybe things have changed since then. I'm not against it.

Personally, I look for how friendly, helpful, and active a member is around the community. If they can point out that a topic needs to be moved or closed without being obnoxious, that's a major plus. Being relatively drama-free helps, too. I personally don't think we need mods who start a ton of conflict (yeah, I know, I myself have been involved, but as a habit I try not to start things)

When Dani was modded, they weren't even supposed to comment. The thread just remained open for the sake of congratulations and such

Well, what's the argument against soliciting comments?

What it comes down to is who the moderating staff is supposed to serve. If they are to serve the cB admin, then so be it; don't solicit comments from the community, but don't use doublespeak to make it sound as though the "People Staff" is there to serve the people.

On the other hand, if the People Staff is there to serve the people, the community should at least be able to comment on the proceedings, if not vote directly.

I dont know about any of the other hirings but with this one we looked at some of the basic things (at least I did when I made my list)
1. Someone takes the time out to be welcoming to new members
2. Stays out cB drama
3. Contributes to the community ( feedback, helps in design forums, etc)
4. Has a member long enough to know the ropes and the rules of cB. Also fairly well known around the cB community because he/she is active, not neccasarily popular. So about more than 6 months for me.
5. Leads by example for other members to follow
6. For people staff, active in all of the community forums in a big plus. If you are helpful in finding topics that should be closed, moved etc its another big plus. Just overall helpful around the community based forums

Just some of the basics

Out of curiosity, is this done on a personal or public basis? In other words, take two candidates: one posts a comment in every duplicate thread saying, "This a duplicate thread." The other doesn't post a comment in the thread, but PM's a moderator to let her know that a thread needs moved or closed. Realistically speaking (i.e. I mean in actual practice, not in theory), who would be taken more seriously by the moderating staff?

Honestly both, for me anyways. They are both being helpful. As long as they are not being obnoxious about it, like Nicki said. Most people who are like that do both anyways.

it depends on the activity of the mods at the particuar point of time. That's the advantage of the _ users reading this topic, and other members online things: if there's mods on roaming the forums, there's no need to PM, but if there isn't then that's typically the way to go. It also doesn't do much good to just say that something needs to be closed. If you really want to be helpful, search and post the link.

I personally would take the one that PM'ed me more seriously.

I used to do a little of both.

...it's annoying when people make a HUGE deal about a topic being in the wrong place.

PM'ing a staff memer shows that they can kindly point out a misplaced topic.

In the last one, it was said that Jusun went off a topic that was made for mods to post who they thought would be the best. I don't know how the counting went about, perhaps it was skewed, who knows. But that's what was done this time. Not too many Admin/Headstaffs even participated in the voting and whatnot because they weren't on.

Which comes to my next point:

I think mods & members should have more involvement in the modding process, not because they need more say or whatever, but because the Admins and Heads have other things to worry about and are more involved in the actual running of the site, rather than interacting with members. Thus, they don't know the people who apply as well as the other mods and members. Mods have concentrated focus on one part of the entire forum therefore eliminating the concern for the forum as a whole. Members don't even have concentration on anything. Alas, mods and members know those who apply better than Admins and Heads. To get a real feel of the potential of your applicants, you need to interact with them a fair amount.

I don't know if it's necessarily true, but due to what I heard about the last modding process, that's what I got from it since several Admins & Heads didn't even participate due to not being here for it.

Ah, a good point, one which I had been going to post in the Feedback forum today. It's really tangent to this discussion, but I do think there should be a guideline, if not a strict rule, that if a mod closes a topic because it is a duplicate, then she should at least post links to existing topics. There have been a number of times I've seen a topic get closed with the words "There are existing threads on this topic," yet no link was posted. But that's an aside and not really strictly sticking to this discussion.

I think something anonymous where members could voice their honest opinions on staff canidates would be a good idea. Anonymity typically ensures that people will do a better feel less restrained talking about others, since they can't get offended and start personal grudges. There would be no reason to feel like you'd have to overly compliment a friend, and we could compare IPs to see that people aren't just endoring themselves or whatnot (not check, just compare)


True, but if the topic had been bumped or made recnetly, I don't think it should be that necessary, as it isn't so hard to skim through a page or 2. Also, I don't want people to complain if I don't post the link. Not to say that mods should make a habit of not, and then making up excuses each time, but we don't need members being ridiculous

I think the point Nicki's trying to make is that..it's not really our job to go find those topics. It was the person's job as a topic poster to make sure there wasn't already a duplicate topic in the first place. If they want to keep posting on the subject, they can go look for themselves, seeing as it's their job in the first place.

Sure, it'd be nice if we all did that, but some of us don't have the time and are simply trying to get our job done. There's a lot for a mod to do in even a day. Being a Myspace mod, I have to check the skin database (and if there's acceptances, I have to upload the images, check the code to make sure it's not jocked, resize screenshots if they're not the right size, etc., which can all be quite enough for one day depending on the number of acceptances), check if there is any scripts submitted to accept/reject, go through Myspace Help and see if there are any topics I can answer, close, move, etc., check through Myspace Showcase and do the same....and that's only the Myspace forums. I also have the Webmaster's Corner that I moderate. Plus, I'd also like some time to use Createblog for what I really love about it - the whole community. Not only the community forums, but just to interact. Then I have to check Backstage as well.

That's just one day.
Some of us simply don't have time to search for every duplicate topic there ever was, especially if it isn't our job to do so in the first place. A common misconception is that we're here to serve the members, which is not true. We are here for help and guidance in establishing a welcoming, fun community and nothing more.



That is Sammi's rant for today.

hiring process, people.

make another thread for closing topics. although i think just a provision to create a rule will do in the by-laws.

hiring process.

why no emulate the original constitution's idea?

everyone gets to vote for delegates, who in turn have a 4 days to argue about the new mods (2 days public, then 2 days of private deliberations), then they vote on each individual applicant.

applicants recieving a 2/3 positive votes make it to the shortlist, which is made public.

the shortlist is then sent to a group of mods, who have 2 days to see if there's a reason each of the applicants on the short list cannot be a mod.

they then vote, and anyone with a majority in favor becomes a new mod.


something like that.

^I dont think it should be that overly complicated. And who is "everyone"?

anyone who cares enough to vote.

that's just a suggestion, you can modify it however you want.

i think that endorsments are a good idea. some people will endorse their friends for the soul reason of being friends with the person, but it is easy to detect. . . i just think that we should encourage, when asking for applications, the fact that when getting an endorsment it would be alot more helpful to their chances to get an endorsment from someone that genuinely thinks they should get the position according to their posts on CB.

i also think that mod selection should be left up to mods and members 45/45 according to lists, not polls (i just dont like the idea of polls) and left up for a week as well as being advertised to ALL of the section on CB, so that it will be more likely for all the groups on cb to get involved

But the fact remains that pretty much all of them are trite and say the same thing. As hard as I tried not to, I know mine were, even though I really did support the people

endorsements are useless. i mean, what, is someone going to give a bad endorsement or outright refuse to give one?

some might, but you wouldn't know then, would you.

I believe that endorsements can be a good idea and a bad idea. the good thing is that, that person is speaking out the opinion about whether or not that person who is applying should be staff. the bad thing is what if it's not true?

people that deserve to be mods need to:
be helpful.
be active.
be friendly.
be mature.

and others. I am not saying that the current mods aren't doing a great job. they are doing great. I tried to apply for People Staff, and I tried everything I could do. I have been friendly, been active, and showed some examples of helping out.

i think that it shows motivation. . . they at least have three people motivated enough to endorse them, and themselves have the motivation to ask for them. i think it cuts down on useless applications as well


i think that every one applied was friendly polite and helpful-i think that the endorsments helped filter it to that point-and the best were picked

did anyone NOT get endorsements?

do you know how many endorsements basick got?

i rest my case.

the quantity of the endorsments had nothing to do with it...the fact that he overdid it so much was :\
and i'm not saying endorsments are EVERYTHING, i just believe they are a good addition that was added to the whole process for the reasons i stated before.

//edit
and bassick wasn't completely inept to become a mod. he was very active and contributed to the community, which is why he got all of the endorsments. and i think the endorsments sort of come into play in those aspects-which leads to why there is a limit to the number of endorsments and how much they should sway the outcome

Well maybe written out endorsements shouldnt be allowed anymore. I'm thinking mod support is great for a candadite, after all, we are mods and we have a general idea of who would make great candadites. However, the problem of friends endorsing friends does come into play and does creates sort of some bias .

^ but who else are you going to ask to endorse you? someone who hates you?

thats true. i think endorsements should just be outlawed. the mods have to pick who they like anyways, so why endorse someone if they are just going to pick them anyways?

ok...ok...

ENDORSEMENTS
Most of you thought endorsements were a bad thing, and you had many good points. But, what I do like about endorsements is that it shows we take this seriously, and it makes a nice part of the application. Instead of just writing your application, you have to actually do something else and INTERACT with people to get an endorsement. Now, i dont know about 3. But i like the idea of atleast 1 staff member, and 1 official member. If you ask me it makes the hiring more official, and makes a better application.
REQUIREMENTS TO BECOME A MOD
(1)The member needs to be active. And not just active in the lounge and entertainment, but active in the whole community (especially people staff)
(2)The member should be a member for atleast 6 months. It will show their dedication and they should be familiar with the rules and forums.
(3)When it comes to Createblog Drama...eh...man...they need to be mature. let's just put it like that. They need to be mature and respectful. Those qualities are so important when you are looking to hire someone.
(4)I recommend the member should have over 1,500 posts in the 6 months they were here. Is that fair? or should the post count be higher? i think it's a nice platform, and thats how it was last time , no?
(5)They need to know how to use the search button lol
(6)As a mod you are SERVING the community. Look at it as stepping down, NOT stepping up. Being a mod is hard work and it's a JOB. You need to take it serious. This is not for people who are on some power craze.
(7)Mods need to be helpful, respectful, kind, mature, and open minded.

hmmm....

to me, endorsements are pretty much pointless. most applicants already interact- they'd have a nil postcount if they didn't. there's no way to make endorsements what your ideal is. they will always just be favors done for friends.




i personally see no problem in a mod who's only active in a select area.

as for the join limit, it's too long. the post count limit, also too large.

put the limit at one month and 250 posts. i mean, the limits don't really weed out bad people, it just chops off a random segment. and because there is going to be some sentient being selecting these- i don't think it'd hurt to drastically reduce requirements.

as far as maturity- don't judge that. it's too subjective. the overall presentation of the application can be judged, but simply asking opinions on an applicant's maturity is too open to bias. and respectful? judge sole based on the application.



the search button, useful as it is, shouldn't be a requirement for modship. i don't see the point.

i've yet to see anyone on a power craze. and, to be truthful, most applicants are at least power hungry.

and the kind, respectful, open minded stuff... that'd make a nice mod, but not necesarily a good mod...


basically what i'm saying is scrap most requirements. like endorsements, they're redundant.

limit with at least 1 month and 250 posts, but that's all.

and even that is simply an arbitrary number.

You think a one month requirement would be sufficient? A person can join createblog and post like crazy and be active and helpful for one month...maybe two...and then start to lose interest and fade away. and now you are down one mod. I mean you have seen it happen around here. People post for about 1 or 2 months and then they forget about this site. It might not have to be as long as 6 months, but atleast longer then 1!

As for endorsements, it would be fine with or without them. I personally think it makes a better application. Although the whole "popularity, friend" theme does come between it, i think endorsements are ultimately good. It also gets more of the members involved. but either way i am fine, although i think ultimately it is good to get the members more involved.

If someone is picked to be part of the people staff, it is their responsibility to see over the entire community that they have been entrusted with. they can't simply just stick to the anime section or the lounge. they need to be pretty active around the entire community. They need to see the entire picture instead of just a piece.

As for post count and how long the member has been here...again, it shows dedication. The ppd is important.

about maturity and respect: i was just saying that as a mod they have to be responsible. They have to respect the community and the members, and they have to be mature in a way that everytime someone picks a fight they don't go warning people and what not. That's all i was saying. Being a mod takes responsibility, so in that case when the staff looks over the applications and look over the members posts, they have to keep these things in mind.

And about a "good mod"...a good mod does the job well AND is respectful, kind, and openminded.
You can do the job well, but be disrespectful, bashing on the members, and picking fights all the time...that would be a bad mod in my opinion, no matter how well they did their job.

well, i guess we first have to establish what exactly is the job of a mod.

making new topic.

did anyone read this? we could set up an area where guests could post (which would be closedly monitored) or make an account specifically for people to send their opinions on others to.

well, having a forum much like this one for deliberations on the applicants would work fine...

^hey, i'm actually liking that idea.
i think overall it would be good, what do you guys think?
would you guys consider this?

i agree with justin. i do think the post count can at least be raised to 500 with a 2 month minimal time span, but if you look at it, the person that will be picked nine times out of 10, will be the person who has been here longer and who has the most posts.

as for the being active in more than just a couple areas i think is stupid. i dont really like to go into the locker rooms...im more into what the lounge has to offer. you do more interacting there...and interacting seems to be a big thing that all the mods are talking about. rather than boring "my body is doing this..." type of stuff id rather read humerous stuff, seeing how i dont really go into the locker rooms. sure a better mod would visit all, but how many of them actually do?

You guys asked who is most likely to be considered for People Staff and its the ones that interact in the community areas most that recieve the big pluses. People staff dont just moderate one main area, we moderate all the community forums. Thats in the job descprition. We have to make ourselves accessible in all the areas. So, if you are a candadite that does that and is helpful and contributes, whats wrong with that? Nothing.
The limit of at least one month is crazy to me. Not many people know members that have been around for one month, you havent proven yourself in a grand total of 30 to 31 days, you're still considered a newbster. I would think if someone was really wanting to be on People staff they would wait until they have proven themselves longer. No rush, if you really arent power hungry you wont mind the wait.


I like that idea.

which is kinda a fault, becuase then mods just pay attention to only the major forums...

but enough about that.

is there anyway of mking a poll whereby only admins/staff can view the results?

because, if so, perhaps we could do somethign whereby we take all applicationsa dn post them in a thread in the lounge with a poll with invisible results. then, the members can vote, and will no tbe influenced directly by the poll results.

this kills off any potentials who arent well known by the community who they will represent, linking back to sammi's point about staff/admins having other thigns to worry about backstage and whatnot to have a perfect idea of inter-community relations.

then, the top however-many (or possibly everyone who reaces a certain number of votes) are taken backstage, and discussed among the staff in the way in which the last hiring was handled, where the final decison is made

that way it involves the community, but staff have the final say.



i like that idea... i think people need to be abl eto discuss the candidates frankly without people getting hurt by specific people, in manner of the dani fiasco.



1) agreed to an extent, but it shouldnt be the be all and end all. if two people are equally qualified, then it should come down to whoever has the biggest cross sections of forums that they visit. But if someone who would be very good, bu tonly visits the lounge , entertainemnt, and maybe the locker room and pictures sometimes, they shouldn tbe rejected over someone who wont be as good at the job, but posts everywhere. i mean, a lot of subforums arent that busy, so it isnt essential that all mods are in there all the time

2) agreed fully, prevents people who have go their poss by spaming, if nothing else

3) as for drama, i dont think we should say that the people shouldn't participate at all, but rather that they should go without losing their tempers and conducting themselves well. if someone feels strongly enough about a CB issue to make a stand about it, as long as they are reasonably logical about it, i dont see why it is really a bad thing.

4) post count is fine, even if 1250 does seem slightly random

5) well, yeah, given

6) exactly. you have to be able to work with people, not try and dominate them. also, not give favoruritism to your friends

7) good summary




true. if people didnt enjoy some form of superiority, the woulnt apply.



agreed, actually

at the time when steven actually applied to be a mod, he did actually deserve the post. it was only after that that he went all crazy sad-ass

Just to put it out there, I think I said no to endorsements for four people cause I didn't think they should be mods. One I was pretty friendly with and was expecting a yes. It's not always friendship..

We're not all corrupt, come on now..

i agree wiuth sammi.

i got turned down when i asked someone for an endorsement (not sammi)

if the people are being hired because they are impartial, then they should at least be mature enough not to be biased... i think we';re doing the mods a diservice by assuming that they are more likely to be biased than to not

I turned down a couple of people too.