Alright, first off I'm not bitter about not being hired (even though no-one has been chosen... I'm pretty sure I won't be.). That is not why I'm posting this. I'm posting this so that hopefully, in the future, you guys (the staff) can learn how to avoid all the drama created by your current hiring process. Let's look at the current hiring process:




On CB we have "Hiring Sessions" this is how they work:

1. CB asks it's members to submit their applications via a public thread, so that all members can view the applications. Members read the applications, and then form biased opinions based upon their current relationship with each member.

2. CB then asks it's members (who do not make any decisions when it comes to the hiring process) to take part in a debate that's in the Lounge, were members inevitably end up bashing each other while trying to defend their reasons for a position on staff. A thread where people place words in others mouths and critique grammar/spelling, in a frantic effort to stomp on the heads of their competitors and gain "popularity" so that they have a better chance of being noticed by the "holy" staff. A passive-aggressive race where people try to act "polite" in an attempt make others look bad. This is a place where personal grudges create biased reviews, and the number of friends you have to back you up will effect how "right" or wrong you really are.

3. CB does this because they believe it will make the hiring process easier for them. Is it a "cream will rise to the top" theory, or is this Darwin's Theory - "survival of the fittest"?



Have you ever seen a company's staff post all their applicant's applications on a billboard in front of the company building for all to see, ask for all the applicants to debate and argue with each other over who should get the position, and then sit back and watch as people fight? Let me answer that for you. No, no you haven't, and the only place you will ever see people openly competing for a position like this is on "REALITY TV" shows like the apprentice (which as we all know, isn't very realistic).

There is a reason why real companies/organizations/groups/most websites(excluding CB) don't have hiring sessions like this. It's unfair to the applicants and it makes it more difficult to judge who should and shouldn't get hired.

It's unfair to the applicants. They get to have their applications torn to shreds by people with biased opinions of them. I'll even admit that I do it to. Why not, everyone else does it. IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT!! WE ARE ENCOURAGED TO DO IT!!

It's unfair to the Staff. It makes it more difficult for them to make a decision on who is going to get hired. With everyone yelling and screaming at each other, it becomes increasingly difficult for members of staff to decide who's good and who's bad for the position. All of our opinions of each other effect what they think of us. Eventually, a hiring session becomes a popularity contest when it shouldn't be.





Q: Is CB a democracy?
A: No, for those of you who don't know, they pick and choose who will be hired back stage!

Q: Does it really matter what the members think?
A: Somewhat, a Staff member does need a good understanding of the community and its members, but considering majority of the posts made on this website are done by about 10-15 of it's members... what matters is that we do our jobs when one of us is hired on staff. If someone does a bad job, they can always fire them and hire a new staff member. There are unlimited members of this community just waiting to fill limited staff positions. Has CB ever heard of whats called a PROBATIONARY PERIOD? I guess not, I'll explain...

Probationary Period: Part of the selection process during which an employee new to a position is required to demonstrate fitness for the position by actual performance of the position's duties. Usually during the first couple of weeks that an employee is hired.

Q: Can't we just avoid all of this drama?
A: Yes, we can. We can avoid it, and make CB a more enjoyable environment for all!




- Applications should be submitted via PM.

- There shouldn't be "hiring sessions". You should be able to submit your application to an administrator at any time, they should store those applications in the back, and hire people when they need them. This would be much easier for the Staff, and there would be a lot less drama on the site.

- They should make a topic with a title like "How to become an CB Staff Member" that lists the positions, what is required for the position, if it needs to be filled, and a template for the application.





Should applicants be able to view another applicants application?
NO, for reasons stated above.

Should applicants be able to critique their competitors applications?
NO, for reasons stated above.

Should applicants be able to critique other applicants and give biased reviews, that effect the opinions of both the staff and members?
NO, for reasons stated above.




PS: If you find this offensive at all, I apologize. This is only constructive criticism.

I honestly don't have the time to completely respond to this at the moment, in all fairness.

However, I just want to quickly say that there is to be NO bashing in this thread. This forum is for feedback and Josh has as much right to provide feedback as anyone else. Critique as you will, but no throwing insults or making personal jabs.

I WILL edit this when I have more time.

Ok, here goes (oh and my quote tags aren't working, so please be patient while reading my response. Josh's remarks should be bolded):
1. CB asks it's members to submit their applications via a public thread, so that all members can view the applications. Members read the applications, and then form biased opinions based upon their current relationship with each member.[/b]
I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that people will form biased opinions. Sure, many of the community members have friends and will of course want to see them succeed in being hired. However, I think that you must consider that even those individuals are capable of forming opinions outside of those biased by personal relationships.
2. CB then asks it's members (who do not make any decisions when it comes to the hiring process) to take part in a debate that's in the Lounge, were members inevitably end up bashing each other while trying to defend their reasons for a position on staff. A thread where people place words in others mouths and critique grammar/spelling, in a frantic effort to stomp on the heads of their competitors and gain "popularity" so that they have a better chance of being noticed by the "holy" staff. A passive-aggressive race where people try to act "polite" in an attempt make others look bad. This is a place where personal grudges create biased reviews, and the number of friends you have to back you up will effect how "right" or wrong you really are.
Again, I think you might be stereotyping here. You shouldn’t let isolated incidents affect your overall opinion of the hiring process. Having said that, you are entitled to your opinion. I just think that you should ask yourself if you, yourself are having a personal bias against this process because you’ve been in certain, how should I put this, debates? Yeah, debates is fair. Also, with all due respect, I’m not sure where this “holy” staff comes from. I believe that we are pretty fair individuals and that we treat everyone here with respect. Sure, we’ll make misjudgments, but that’s a general mishap shared by the human race. Also, if you read through that entire thread you might have noticed that I pointed out something to the effect of not pretending to be someone you are not. I appreciate your concern regarding those who will back others and such, however, you are very much generalizing the community as a whole. Perhaps try to respond to them in a manner that is calm, collected and respond with legitimate reasons why you would disagree. I’ve had more than my fair share of debates with people, but in the end we’ve all come to the conclusion that when we stop arguing and start communicating, we’re all the better for it.
3. CB does this because they believe it will make the hiring process easier for them. Is it a "cream will rise to the top" theory, or is this Darwin's Theory - "survival of the fittest"?

Bad or Good?
How exactly is this survival of the fittest? The cream will rise to the top isn’t necessarily completely off the mark though. We’re talking about a hiring session here. We’re talking about finding those who are qualified, dedicated and wanting to do a good job for the sake of cB. Of course the cream will rise to the top.

Also, this process is less than easier for us. If we were to all get together and decide, without letting people decide for themselves whether or not they’d like to apply it would be immensely less difficult of a process. But that’s not how we work. We WANT you guys to have a chance and we WANT the community to have input because after all, the staff is here for the community.

<skipping the entire next part because of a) time and b) I think it’s just reiterating what you’ve already said>

Some Q and A
Q: Is CB a democracy?
A: No, for those of you who don't know, they pick and choose who will be hired back stage!
First off, I’d like to know exactly why it is you think you know exactly what it is happening backstage. But that’s a whole other discussion.

Second, we do choose, but we absolutely consider what is being said in the community. Why else would we have a discussion in The Lounge?

Q: Does it really matter what the members think?
A: No, considering majority of the posts made on this website are done by about 10-15 of it's members... what matters is that we do our jobs when one of us is hired on staff. If someone does a bad job, they can always fire them and hire a new staff member. There are unlimited members of this community just waiting to fill limited staff positions. Has CB ever heard of whats called a PROBATIONARY PERIOD? I guess not, I'll explain...

Probationary Period: Part of the selection process during which an employee new to a position is required to demonstrate fitness for the position by actual performance of the position's duties. Usually during the first couple of weeks that an employee is hired.
You do realize that I’ve been in the workforce for over 15 years right? Yeah. I’m well aware of what a probationary period is and I’m fairly certain many of the community members do as well. I understand that you’re just making it clear what it is you are referring to, just saying.. we know the definition. ;)

Also, as I’m sure you very well know at this point, we do take disciplinary actions if a staff member isn’t doing their job, isn’t regularly active (ie takes an excessive amount of absences) and breaks the rules. While this doesn’t always result in a firing (and sometimes it does), there is definite consequences when you are given the responsibility of a staff member and fail to abide by what I’ve mentioned in my first sentence.
Q: Can't we just avoid all of this drama?
A: Yes, we can. We can avoid it, and make CB a more enjoyable environment for all!
You can’t avoid all drama. Afterall, this is a very exciting time and sometimes one could get carried away. However, I just don’t agree that this hiring session is exclusively about drama.

HOW CAN WE AVOID THIS SHIT?!

Honey, why oh why are you cussing when you’ve sent me PMs complaining about others doing do so AND complain about being warned because you don’t? I’m not bashing, I’m asking.

- Applications should be submitted via PM.
Not a terrible idea, they do not have to be posted in-thread. However, it helps us as far as receiving input from the Community.

- There shouldn't be "hiring sessions". You should be able to submit your application to an administrator at any time, they should store those applications in the back, and hire people when they need them. This would be much easier for the Staff, and there would be a lot less drama on the site.
No, we really shouldn’t. We don't like having quick turn arounds and this is a way to help avoid that as much as possible. Also, it's refreshing this way to have a influx of new staffers, get them used to being a staffer. It helps them all grow together and helps us form a more solid moderator team.

Also, hiring is not a wham bam you're hired and thank you ma'am type of process. We simply wouldn't have the time to keep it up.

- They should make a topic with a title like "How to become an CB Staff Member" that lists the positions, what is required for the position, if it needs to be filled, and a template for the application.
There is a thread that lists the moderator functions, one could easily go there. I’ll find the link in a sec. I don’t believe in templates. This is first and foremost a blogging site and you guys should be well beyond the creativity of just following a template. Use your own mind, tell us in your owns words why you believe you are the one for the job.

My thoughts, if anyone cares...


Should applicants be able to view another applicants application?
NO, that's stupid.

Should applicants be able to critique their competitors applications?
NO, that's stupid.

Should applicants be able to critique other applicants and give biased reviews, that effect the opinions of both the staff and members?
NO, that's stupid.
Again, why the “NO, that’s stupid.” remark? That just isn’t a good way to communicate. It isn’t at all stupid, you just simply don’t agree with our methods.

PS: If you find this offensive at all, I apologize. This is only constructive criticism.
No need to apologize for having opinions. :)

Wow, thank you... xD

I agree with almost everything BUT this:

I think hiring sessions are fine, If people were able to apply whenever they wanted, I think it get kind of crazy.
And what if people apply when staff isnt need, but when staff is needed they arent even active anymore? What happens then?


Yes, it does.

Other than that, I think that posting applications in a thread (in annoucements) is fine, but I agree that we shouldnt have a "Hiring" thread in the lounge for members to debate/fight.

Thank you for bring up your ideas though. They will definitely help for future hiring, Im sure.

I fail to see the inevitability of this. In fact, this is the first hiring session where I've seen any real bashing. Fault of the members, not the system.


The reason why applications are posted publically is because this job involves a great deal of interaction with the members themselves. It is therefore essential that the moderators have the respect of the members. An unpopular mod will not be capable of leading, which is where the critique aspect comes into play. Likewise, i challenge the idea that member commentary makes it more difficult on the mods making the decision, as it provides insight into the community opinion, which,like it or not, is an important factor when determining an applicant's suitability. Furthermore, if an applicant IS bashing, then it is a display of their true colours, and can only help the mods to know what they are really like.

No, it is not usual for company's to make heir applications public, but Cb is not a company. It is a social network, which needs leaders who are respected and liked.

I will illustrate with an example from Cb's past, before the members' commentary thread was introduced. A member named Dani (not to be confused with Libertie) was appointed to People Staff, over many who were considered to be better candidates by the community. The direct result of this was the closest thing Cb has seen to a riot, and was swiftly followed by one of the biggest falings out between mods and members ever, the Cb Revolution. The reason for this was that mods refused to explain the motivations behind hiring Dani over others. Secrecy in Createblog hirings doesn't work.

Furthermore, the ability to accept criticism is an important part of being a mod, and the members' thread allows for potential mods to have this tested. If they can accept constructive criticism while applying, it is likely that they will be able to do so while on staff.

It absolutely does. A mod who is not respected and reasonably well-liked will not be sucessful, unless they are exceptional, and not all mods have been.

The hiring sessions aid with the transparency issu which i have already addressed. i would also observe that when Krista and Arjuna (I think it was you, please correct me if I'm wrong) were appointed to staff without a hiring session, it caused a great deal of commentary among members, as many could not understand why this had occured. Although Arjuna especially proved o be a strong mod, it could easily have not been the case, and resentment would have resulted.

I would define what you see as bias as honesty. If a member has constantly irritated the other members, or demonstrated immaturity, or whatever, and his/her application is not well recieved, that is not bias. It is honesty and experience talking. The members don't want this person on staff, and therefore will not like it if they are hired. Simple as that. The title is People Staff. Staff of the People. Therefore, the people need a say.

Oh, and i also agree with Kara about the potential consequences of applying whenever. If a member who would be a strong mod is not accpeted to staff because there are enough staffers, it could be interpreted as flat out rejection, and result in them not applying later on, when they would be needed.

Or, if their application was put 'on hold' as it were, their activity levels could fluctuate/they could no longer be interested, etc. The hiring session generates a burst of excitment, and get's current members and old members (witness the current range of applications) are drawn to apply.

Yes James, it was Krista and myself. And thank you.

Right. One might compare cB hiring a member as a company employing someone. However, I'm going to agree with James when he was talking about the People Staff being the "Staff of the People." Personally, I would think it more like when a country is electing its leaders. The citizens (members) know all of the candidates (applicants) running for president, senator, representative, etc. (People Staff, Xanga Staff, Myspace Staff, etc.). At the same time, the citizens can discuss their thoughts on them among each other freely (the cB hiring member discussion thread, cB chat). The candidates may sometimes be critiqued, and it's up to them how to reply to that (when applicants try "defending" themselves).

The moderators will inevitably become something of leaders of cB, which is why I don't see this comparison too far off. The moderators will always be involved with the members (particularly the People Staff), and when members have a question, the moderators are often the ones to answer (particularly the Design Staff). And when there are occasional "foreign matters" (such as forum invasions) the moderators of the other forum usually go to our moderators when they want to communicate. The relationship between something like "a company's treasurer and the company's customers" and "representative and citizen" are very different, and I find the latter more similar to cB's "moderator and member."

Of course, the analogy isn't perfect (i.e. the final decision is not up to the members, nonetheless, their opinion matters), but I find it more accurate than comparing the hiring session to something like when a company hires a person, and perhaps is why you might find cB's hiring sessions "bad" because they're not like a company's "hiring sessions."

Your welcome, Arjuna.

And yea, the representative/citizen similie is one I've used myself, and while obviously it isn't totally accurate, it IS more fitting than company/employee.

Shouldn't you be able to see who is a qualified staff member is based upon interest that they show in the position and the way they act towards the community already?


What if the community wants to hire someone who is unqualified just because they are popular? What if what the "community" wants isn't even in the hiring thread. Less than 50% of the community posted in that thread. far far far less than 50%... how do you really know what the community wants?



You have to understand that you aren't receiving input from the community. You are receiving input from 50-60 members of the community... about 33% of those members are applying for staff... you call that the community?


How else could it be done? Tell me... do you role a twenty sided die and give each applicant a number? Do the members have a voting thread that I don't know about? C'mon, if you haven't figured this out yet then you are either new to the site or completely ignorant.


At least we agree on the "no" part... the rest is questionable.


I never thought it was, and if I gave you that idea.. I'm sorry.



Yes, there is but it isn't the same thing that I'm talking about. Templates are only a way to organize, if you don't believe in them you will be severely disappointed if ever you are trying to organize data (I work for a market research company... if we didn't have templates I would go absolutely insane organizing respondents results). This, "Use your own mind, tell us in your owns words why you believe you are the one for the job." could be a question on that template.






I agree it's not a good way to communicate... but I have elaborated upon each one of those questions within the post.

[b]Honey, why oh why are you cussing when you’ve sent me PMs complaining about others doing do so AND complain about being warned because you don’t? I’m not bashing, I’m asking.[b]
I wasn't cussing at anyone in particular.



Well, as far as I know I have seen bashing in every hiring session. This one more than others. It is the system. This system is just begging for members to duke it out.



It is good to have members who are well liked on people staff, but when you think about it. It really doesn't matter. As long as they do their job, and do it well. I don't understand why there should be such an uproar. Did you participate in the "riot", or CB revolution?

I personally see mods being friends with the members as a stumbling block. If they are the friends of members in the community, and those friends break the rules will they be punished fairly and equally? Probably not, favoritism exists people... if I'm friends with a mod I will be able to get away with a lot more on this site than if I am not. It's to bad, but it's not their fault. People just aren't simply able to keep things strictly business when a friendship is involved.

Also, you should be able to tell if a member is mature enough to handle a position due to the nature of his posts prior to being hired on staff. You shouldn't need to create a topic where people tear each other to shreds and call it "constructive criticism". If the member hasn't been on long enough, then that's their problem.

It does matter to a certain extent what the members think. I will edit this right away.

But at the same time, the only reason you should hire someone to be a mod is if they are exceptional. Why settle for anything less. I would say it's definitely important for a mod on peoples staff to have a solid understanding of the community, therefore they must be well known. The staff members on this site aren't blind, they see everything that goes on, and in general they know how popular/unpopular a member is before they submit an application.

Members of design staff on the other hand don't really need good soft skills, nor do they need to be popular. They can get by on their knowledge of coding layouts or graphics. Their job generally consists of accepting/rejecting submissions while helping members of the community achieve what they are trying to accomplish in a layout or graphic that they are attempting to create.

I don't think I'm clearly understanding this... I'm just hoping you will rephrase it so I can. If not I hope I addressed this in the things that I said above.

I also see her point, but there are so many things you can do to prevent that from happening I could give you a simple idea of what I would suggest:

Situation:

a. a strong mod is not accepted to staff because there are enough staffers.
Have a thread stating the currently available positions that need to be filled, and reply to applicants that make a request for a job that is no longer available telling them that they need to check the "Hiring Thread" for available positions.

b. Or, if their application was put 'on hold' as it were, their activity levels could fluctuate/they could no longer be interested, etc.
You have to reply to the applicants. If you don't this will inevitably happen. This is all part of the hiring process.

This is crap. You, my friend, obviously never stepped into the working world. In many hiring sessions now, employers like to use what's called a "group interview". This tatic is, in essence, the same thing as sharing your application/interview with everyone who is involved with the hiring proccess. Thank you HRM 101, though I figured this out myself by keeping up with the news.




You said yourself that cB is a COMMUNITY, but I do wonder if you know what that means. Anyway, people who don't vote, obviously don't care much about who's leading cB! If they don't care, why should you? And even if the community cared enough, you must have process and law to ensure order and prevent crzy people from getting what they want.

On another note, less than half of Americans vote. Why don't you take your anger out on that, too, while you're at it?

No the system isn't perfect, but what is? You got a better idea?


P.S. Just so you know, "constructive criticism" isn't saying "No, it's stupid" about everything. That's just plain criticism, capesche?


Edit: P.P.S. Sounds like bitterness to me.

Calling my feed back crap... hmmmm... personal attack... bash?

Suggesting I don't work.... making fun of me?

I know what a group interview is, and CB is nothing like a group interview.

here: http://jobsearchtech.about.com/od/interview/l/aa121602.htm

The people in the interview don't critique each others applications. Instead, applicants collect as a group and talk with the employer or person who is hiring the employees. They don't CRITIQUE each other. Having people critique each other when they are competing for a position just creates drama.

It's not like the "CB is hiring" thread is advertised on all the forums... I'm sure many people that stick to one or two sections of the site had no idea this even went on. Also, CB is not a democracy or a republic. No-one votes on anything here (staff related), and if they did you might hold some ground by saying that.

I did have an idea, if you read my posts instead of bashing me you may have seen it.

I'm not bitter at all, I'm just making an attempt to suggest an idea that I personally believe would make CB a better place.

I agree with Uronacid. Show them the knowledge my friend.

Knowledge: Jeremy is the sexiest friend I know... I'm not kidding... I might just have... no I wouldn't, but he is sexy.

now back to our regularly scheduled program.

I never claimed that I would give you "constructive criticism" so I don't see why you would be surprised about what I said.

Child, read what you said yourself:



The only variation here is that non-applicants, in our case, those who are affected by this process, can see exactly how qualified you are. As someone else already said, this is is just like an election where candidates must bare their qualifications, or lack thereof, to the public. AND if you don't think people talk shit about each other in group interviews, you're either very naive, or you've never experienced one.

No one vote staff related things? You're right, cBers don't vote, cBers only created a cB revolution to demand things be changed. cBers just created by laws for the heck of it. Yea, like you know how cB runs. Haha.

Sorry that I didn't read through the whole thread. I don't have time to anyway seeing how lengthy the whole thing is. What is your bright idea? How do you suggest the system be perfected?

That was sarcasm by the way because if you can perfect the system, you would be a hero to the American people.

cB is not a democracy, but it's not authoritarian or whatever it is you feel it to be. Sorry, about the system failing you, but it worked for a lot of other people.

Actually, to be fair, many have criticized the older systems in the past and I had/have problems with it, too, but again, it cannot be perfected.

About popularity, if you are not outgoing and a people person... or a person that the community like, wouldn't that make you unqualified? I'm just curious about what you have against popularity. I know choosing someone simply because he/she is popular is a problem, but I don't see that going on. I only see highly qualified people being chosen, their popularity in the community is only one aspect of their qualifications.

Oh, and lastly, just because other sites don't do it doesn't mean cB can't. I think cB has done quite a number of things that other sites hasn't, but it's still quite the place to be.

Kudos though for speaking your mind.

Reply to me in the same fashion that Duchess of Dork and I shot JFK did, and I will respectfully reply back.

"I never claimed that I would give you "constructive criticism" so I don't see why you would be surprised about what I said."

Then why are you posting? You aren't even debating me... I'm happy to hear what you have to say, but your all over the place. I know you don't want to read the post, but if you don't want to read it... please don't participate...

So one must be organized and constructive to voice his/her opinion? Is that your law?

Sorry if I was incoherent, but it looks like you're reading between the lines rather than focusing on what I'm really saying anyway. The pot calling the kettle black, cute. Woot for you, sucks to be me, right? Haha.

I didn't know you wanted to debate this with me, I was only telling you what I think of your spiel because it's my right, but if you want a debate, I don't mind. cB knows I love debates.

What is your point then? Can you do me the favor of reducing that page load of reading into one concise paragraph since you're so good at organizing your thoughts?

My point is simple: do you see unqualified people selected in this session of hiring? No. And so, how is the system not working?

I care not if you respectfully respond or if you want to respond at all. If I find that your opinions are silly, I will say so and explain, as it is in my right. You have, in turn, the right to respond as you'd like within the rules of the community.

And if in saying that your ideas are silly, I hurt your sensitive constitution, I am sorry. But you should know that you're doing the same to the person who put the new system together by calling it "pathetic". So, think before you say (or sound indignant), my friend, because the words of a hypocrite are often condemned, if not ignored.

It's not my law, I just want to understand you and what you are referring to in my posts.




Please get back to the topic.

If you are upset by me using the word "pathetic", I will change it. Do I think that they hired unqualified people? Yes, in fact, but I will refrain from posting their names... there is not point at the moment. That's like fighting the fact that George Bush is the president after he entered into his second term. It's pointless, in no way am I going to take anyone out of their positions. I can only hope that they prove themselves to be good staff members.

I never said that the current hiring system didn't work. They just hired people. I believe that the current hiring system creates large amounts of needless drama, and doesn't allow the staff to hire the people who are best suited for the positions.

No. The system is begging to be used ocnstructively. there will always be idiots who use it to bash. That is NOT the fault of the system.

Other variations have failed in the past. This has proven efective.

Variations of the same system? It hasn't been "proven" more effective than other systems...saying that leead me to question...

How many hiring systems has CB had?

How did they function?

When a system is put into affect, you have to follow the norms that come with it. From my understanding, it seems as if a system was in affect and few of the staff members didn't abide by it. The results were disasterous, and the leak of information sparked the CB revolution. Did the staff follow the system to ensure that it was effective (if things needed to be kept a secret, were they?)?

Alot of the replies have had to do with how secrecy doesn't work on CB? If there are to be no secrets on CB then why do the staff members have a "backstage" forum?

I'm not saying the current one doesn't work, but I am saying that there is deffinitly a better way. I believe that the staff is capable of better, and that's why I'm submitting this post.

As an aside and since it isn't really relevant to what we're talking about here (Yes, I know I pointed it out first), regarding the cussing thing, Josh. If someone were to be warned for cussing, it would be a warning for cussing, not just cussing at an individual. :) [/mom]


Well, we can nominate. However, this way we see not only those with potential, but those with drive.


Those who care (and have the time), post. Those who care about the benefit of the site, raise their voices, if you will. Those so-called 50% would theoritically be inactive and as such, don't know or probably care who is and isn't staff. So the meat of the community, those who speak their minds and participate in such events are telling us what they want. It completely relates to the voting system and democracy (well, sort of). It would be like saying lets just not have a vote or let the people have a say at all if there's a percentage of them that do not say anything.

Or you know someone with access to Backstage. I'm totally kidding, by the way. It's been mentioned before that that's what we do.

Um, hi! Data Analyst here. :D I know quite a bit about gathering and organizing data. If I were to rely on templates and not ever create my own queries, I'd be even MORE disappointed in myself. Besides, your comparison doesn't work. Must I remind you that this is first and foremost a blogging site with roots in creativity. Templates are both trite and cold.

On a happier and quite satisfied note:

I have to say that this particular round, in my opinion has actually proven to be the most efficient, most effective and most fair I've personally seen here.

Yes, it is unfortunate that drama stirs and that tensions were high at times, but that's just how it is. Drama would have occured regardless of the process. Read over James' post about random hirings and selections. Even if there wasn't a topic in the Lounge where members provide feedback, people would have found another place to express their opinions, biases, etc.

Those who care (and have the time), post. Those who care about the benefit of the site, raise their voices, if you will. Those so-called 50% would theoritically be inactive and as such, don't know or probably care who is and isn't staff. So the meat of the community, those who speak their minds and participate in such events are telling us what they want. It completely relates to the voting system and democracy (well, sort of). It would be like saying lets just not have a vote or let the people have a say at all if there's a percentage of them that do not say anything.

In some respects you're right, but more 80% of those members in that post are members that have been on the web site for one or more years. We have a huge shortage of new members... maybe this is a different issue...

This isn't even close to a democracy, and we have no voting system. You really can't compare the two.

The hiring thread isn't highly advertised, and the newer members (500 posts or less) don't really have a high chance at finding it. I definitely think it needs to be more publicized.

Templates are both trite and cold.

I collect the data, I don't organize it unless clients request a written response. I'm not a data-analyst like you. I collect the data for people who are in your position (supervise the people who collect it). I do know about mySQL and query writing though... I took a few classes in school, but back to your statement. Not if it were simple enough. In the case of "an application for this site", it make look like this:

-----------------------------
NAME:
POSITION YOUR APPLYING FOR:
REASON FOR APPLYING:
<put whatever you want be creative>
-----------------------------


Nothing to far from what you guys already do, I would only suggest a simple template to make it easier on staff. If your staff was to accept applications, they would need to organize and sort through them while looking to hire a member. A simple template wold make the difference between extremely difficult and extremely easy. A simple template would also allow room for creativity. I not talking about the cold templates used on an application for the real world.

It's not really a blogging site... it's just another forum with a few extras and a spiffy layout.

I have to say that this particular round, in my opinion has actually proven to be the most efficient, most effective and most fair I've personally seen here.

I agree with you, you have been a big help. Although, I feel as if James is just spitting things out because he doesn't like me. A lot of what he says isn't very well thought out. You, on the other hand, have shown my why we use this system.

Tell your mom that cussing is part of the English language. It's tasteless if you cuss to much; It's not to bad if you don't make it a habit. [/me]

What? Now I am the one who's upset? Hahaha, sure, if you want to habor such delusions, go for it =]

Yours is the classic case of unhappy campers, a/k/a those who applied and didn't get picked and scrutinize the system because of it. I've seen this before so I guess I understand where you're coming from. Though if you think someone is unqualified, why don't you name them and say why you think he/she is unqualified? Don't be chicken. That's why there's something called Moderator Performance thread created by Jeff. Remember? No? Well, that was your reminder. While you can't dethrone George Bush, you can still call him out! Hello? Do the same for unqualified staff. And since you've never been on staff, you wouldn't know that staff can and does get reprimanded by Admins =] But now you know. Don't give yourself an excuse to be chicken.

Now you're the one not making any sense. Obviously you don't think the system works, or else why would you call it pathetic? Or are you in the habit of calling something that works fine pathetic? Do you care to clear up my confusion?

I'm telling you now that the people who were picked are the ones best suited for their respective positions regardless of the "drama" that you think resulted from how they were chosen. If you think otherwise, name names and state your reasons logically with facts to back up your claims. So long as you don't sound whiny about it, I'm sure people will listen. It has been done before and changes have been made.

You make a good point about past systems not working as well as we like, but remember that if "drama" is the reason you're shooting down the current process, you're in over your head. Drama is all around cB, I don't see how you want curb down just one part of it and not all of it? Is it because this drama revolved around you?

Now I ask you, how am I off topic?

Q: How many hiring systems have there been?
A: Approximately three.

In the beginning, mods just brought up members Backstage out of the blue, each in their own topic, and then the mods themselves vote on the cantidate that they proposed. This didn't work because it was based more on frequency of seeing a certain person rather than their actual qualifications.

Then we tried doing that whole PM-and-wait-around-without-a-real-session-thing, and it didn't work out too well. Although it eliminated the possibility of people being "good" just around hiring season, we can usually tell who's doing that anyway.

So far, this system seems to be most effective, as any of the "bad things" that go along with it don't really affect it anyway. I think the mods are perfectly capable of deciding who to hire by themselves without community input, but if we took away the community input, we would be called tyrants. It's just as easy to say, "I think this person should be a mod cause they're my friend!" whether you're a regular member or a mod.

I changed it for you. This shouldn't be an issue anymore. You were the one to bring t up in the first place. I'm sorry for assuming that it upset you. When someone brings something to the "table" they generally have a problem with it.



Not true, at all. I originally wasn't even going to apply... I didn't really have a desire to be on staff, but my girl friend encouraged me to do it. I could care less if I'm on staff or not, but I will do my best at whatever I do.




Why beat a dead horse? Meaning, it's a waste of time, nothing will be done, and I will only receive grief for it.



The system works, but I personally believe that it could be much better. Look, people were hired. I can't deny that. If people weren't hired then the system wouldn't be working. It works, but I don't think it's as effective as others.







You have to start somewhere, and why not start in current events. No, it's not.




You were going off course by being personal with me. You're putting words in my mouth and twisting them to your liking so that I'll look like an idiot. If you call that a debate, don't waste your time. If you want to give your opinion on the hiring process and defend it, that's one thing. Calling me names, and twisting what I say is another.



I agree with you.

Is it possible to combine both methods? Instead of waiting for the staff to become understaffed... have an application thread, and if it does become ridiculously understaffed (like it did last month) have a "hiring session".

Not really. If you have apps when we're not understaffed, they become forgotten.

1) I changed it for you. This shouldn't be an issue anymore. You were the one to bring t up in the first place. I'm sorry for assuming that it upset you. When someone brings something to the "table" they generally have a problem with it.
You have a problem with the current system but does that mean you're upset about it? Probably, probably not. I just like to debate silliness, but am I upset with it or you? No, I don't think I am. It is a thrill for me when I have free time. If I take every debate as seriously as you think I do, I wouldn't have last long in cB since I spent most of my time in the Debate forum.

You changed what for me? Aren't you the one doing the twisting then?

2) Not true, at all. I originally wasn't even going to apply... I didn't really have a desire to be on staff, but my girl friend encouraged me to do it. I could care less if I'm on staff or not, but I will do my best at whatever I do.
I'm sorry I assumed then, but my assumption stemmed from your persistence in the hiring comments thread. You understand how that could have suggested otherwise, right?

3) Why beat a dead horse? Meaning, it's a waste of time, nothing will be done, and I will only receive grief for it.
Aren't you beating a dead horse here, too? What is the difference between that subject and this one?

3) The system works, but I personally believe that it could be much better. Look, people were hired. I can't deny that. If people weren't hired then the system wouldn't be working. It works, but I don't think it's as effective as others.
You say people were hired, but you still refuse to accept their qualifications for the job, obviously, or else why would you debate this, right? You're saying that it's not effective because you think it hires unqualified staff, right? I'm not sure why you don't like it. Is it the lack of anonymity that bothers you? Or the drama? Or all of these?

4) You have to start somewhere, and why not start in current events. No, it's not.
People have already "started" and it was never finished. You're welcome to say that you're continuing with someone else's endeavors, but it has been tried and proved fruitless. You cannot expect cB to end drama and not be authoritarian. As I've said, while we're not quite democratic in your eyes, you cannot prove we're tyrants either. Plus, there's good drama and there's bad drama. The "drama" I saw in the hiring thread was GOOD for competition.

5) You were going off course by being personal with me. You're putting words in my mouth and twisting them to your liking so that I'll look like an idiot. If you call that a debate, don't waste your time. If you want to give your opinion on the hiring process and defend it, that's one thing. Calling me names, and twisting what I say is another.
I agree with you.
Now that's a good contradiction. I was more or less being personal with your ideas the same way you were being personal with shooting down this idea of the hiring process. That is off course? Give me an example of where I put words in your mouth and twist what you say, and I will apologize. I can accept my mistakes you know, but I refuse to take the blame for the mistakes of others.

By the way, in debates, if you can prove the opponent is unqualified for whatever reason (e.g. if they are naive or lack experience), it is reccommended =]

Lastly, your way of debate isn't the only way one can debate.


6) Is it possible to combine both methods? Instead of waiting for the staff to become understaffed... have an application thread, and if it does become ridiculously understaffed (like it did last month) have a "hiring session".
I agree with what Sammi's answer. For example, at the Y and other places, applications are kept until a certain amount of time if they are not hiring, then discarded when that time is over because the employer may think that the applicant is working elsewhere. Often, these applications are filed away to the dark corners of an office, while recent applications have more chances of being called.

Also, the strategy you suggested would most likely reduce the "CB IS HIRING" hype, undermining the importance of actual hiring sessions.

You shouldn't have people applying when you're understaffed... people should only apply when a position needs to be filled.

Lack of staffers = understaffed, no matter what degree it is to.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong: We used to do that. "All-the-time" hiring. I was hired that way (or something radically different that sounds like what you're describing). It didn't work that well, and that's why we've gone into this type of hiring.

And then, the next time we were understaffed, the admins asked the mods how we should hire people. That particular method was discarded in favor of the new one because no one qualified applied in the previous way. (Sammi, do you remember this?)

And excuse me for jumping into an arguement where I don't have a place.

Bad form, bad form. This is not the way to go about starting the third cB war.

Anyways, since you seem committed, I'll give you a nice response.

Please, understand, being on staff isn't just about editing threads, closing spam, and moving topics. It's so easy even caveman could do it. But that's not what being on staff is about. Certainly, those are crucial points. But I do not believe there's been a case of a mod just refusing to do their job, or doing it poorly. At I said, it's pretty simple. Close a topic here, tell someone to shush there. What you have to recognize is that there are a few truths about mods.

1. Activity is the key. Staff members will do their jobs, but only when their on. Activity is, in fact, the primary reason most staff members leave their jobs. An active member makes for an active moderator.
2. Uncontroversial members make for uncontroversial moderators. Conflict avoidance skills are very important for mods, and face it, members that will get into squabbles with other members don't make ideal mods.

Being a mod is being a leader for the community, and that means no drama. If you can't avoid the drama, then you can't be a mod.

Anyways, I think you're forgetting something. Some of the best moderators in the past, take Fae (spirited away) for example, totally avoided any drama. While some people certain do succumb to personal attacks on other applicants, causing problems, the best will indeed rise above it. You're not supposed to openly compete, or debate about who's better. The sole point of the commentary thread is that- commentary. It's where you can air your concerns, like "i think they don't have the patience to be a mod".

Anyways, that being said, cB doesn't need a new mod system. That's not the problem. The ship is sinking and you're arguing about who gets to be the captain. The truth is, cB isn't nearly as popular as it was before. It isn't nearly as active. This isn't a problem of a bad hiring system, or even an inefficent forum structure. The problem is deeper than cB- it's the blog community itself. People have simply gotten tired of reading about other people's ordinary lives.

Certainly, cB still gets a lot of people looking for skins and stats. But these people don't make a solid core for the community. The core of cB has always been the debate forum. Certainly there are very prominent members who have never set foot in the debate forum, but most of the core of cB did. There, members set themselves apart as eople worth having a conversation with. And unfortunately, these members aren't coming to cB anymore.

The debate forum is dead, and consequentially cB is dying. cB needs to change to attract this core back. How? Well, there are many ideas. But i doubt overhauling hiring will do anything for that.

You have a problem with the current system but does that mean you're upset about it? Probably, probably not. I just like to debate silliness, but am I upset with it or you? No, I don't think I am. It is a thrill for me when I have free time. If I take every debate as seriously as you think I do, I wouldn't have last long in cB since I spent most of my time in the Debate forum.

You changed what for me? Aren't you the one doing the twisting then?

It was some thing I could have just as easily lived without. It doesn't matter, so yea I guess I did change it for you. You said you had a problem with it. It was something that I didn't need. It was something I didn't care about. So, if it makes the world a happier place, and it doesn't effect me in the negative I don't have a problem changing it. No, I'm not twisting your words at all. You had problem with my calling the system "pathetic", it was something that I could change, so I changed it for you. You, no-one else said anything about it. If you didn't have a problem with it, then I'm sorry I assumed it bothered you, but my assumption stemmed from your your persistence to complain about me calling the hiring system pathetic.

I'm sorry I assumed then, but my assumption stemmed from your persistence in the hiring comments thread. You understand how that could have suggested otherwise, right?
You're right, but like I said... I try the best at the things I do.


Aren't you beating a dead horse here, too? What is the difference between that subject and this one?
You may think it is, I don't, and it depends... it's a matter of a opinion and past experience don't you think? If I have found giving reasons that mods are unqualified to be a waste of time, then I may feel it's like beating a dead horse. Maybe you have had better experience, but either way we are straying from the issue I have posted.

You say people were hired, but you still refuse to accept their qualifications for the job, obviously, or else why would you debate this, right? You're saying that it's not effective because you think it hires unqualified staff, right? I'm not sure why you don't like it. Is it the lack of anonymity that bothers you? Or the drama? Or all of these?

Both, but mostly the drama... what if people who applied for the positions weren't allowed to post in the "CB is hiring" topic. That way, only members who weren't applying for staff could give their opinions, opinions would be far less bias, and therefore less drama would occur. Hmmm... lemme think more about this before you reply... I have to think of some ideas.

People have already "started" and it was never finished. You're welcome to say that you're continuing with someone else's endeavors, but it has been tried and proved fruitless.

I'm not change everything about the system, "Duchess of Dork" has definitely gotten through to me, and I'm open to ideas of how the system might be made more fair.

You cannot expect cB to end drama and not be authoritarian. As I've said, while we're not quite democratic in your eyes, you cannot prove we're tyrants either.

I'll agree with that.

Plus, there's good drama and there's bad drama.

I'll agree with that.

The "drama" I saw in the hiring thread was GOOD for competition.

There's also good and bad competition, and the drama created in the hiring thread is usually good for bad competition. People stomping each other out with passive-aggressive comments towards one another = bad competition.

Now that's a good contradiction. I was more or less being personal with your ideas the same way you were being personal with shooting down this idea of the hiring process. That is off course? Give me an example of where I put words in your mouth and twist what you say, and I will apologize. I can accept my mistakes you know, but I refuse to take the blame for the mistakes of others.

You're calling me names... a.k.a. You're calling me a Chicken... or assuming negative things, "You, my friend, obviously never stepped into the working world."...

But, maybe be a little more polite.

By the way, in debates, if you can prove the opponent is unqualified for whatever reason (e.g. if they are naive or lack experience), it is reccommended =]

That's called a competitive debating... I'm not here to prove anyone wrong or win anything. I'm hear to learn why the current system is in place and possibly encourage people to question how far it is t it's participants. I'm not your opponent, I want to make this site better. One thing that I believe needs to change is the way that people are hired.

Lastly, your way of debate isn't the only way one can debate.

I know that.

I agree with what Sammi's answer. For example, at the Y and other places, applications are kept until a certain amount of time if they are not hiring, then discarded when that time is over because the employer may think that the applicant is working elsewhere. Often, these applications are filed away to the dark corners of an office, while recent applications have more chances of being called.

Also, the strategy you suggested would most likely reduce the "CB IS HIRING" hype, undermining the importance of actual hiring sessions.

This is the information I'm interested in. Not senseless arguments that aren't going to lead anywhere. That's why I enjoyed "Duchess of Dork".


Someone correct me if I'm wrong: We used to do that. "All-the-time" hiring. I was hired that way (or something radically different that sounds like what you're describing). It didn't work that well, and that's why we've gone into this type of hiring.

And then, the next time we were understaffed, the admins asked the mods how we should hire people. That particular method was discarded in favor of the new one because no one qualified applied in the previous way. (Sammi, do you remember this?)

And excuse me for jumping into an arguement where I don't have a place.


Thank you, this is first hand experience. You definitely have a place.



The part about what it takes to be a mod... well, that we all know..

Conflict avoidance... it should be "conflict management". As a mod, you shouldn't start fights to begin with. You need to learn how to break them up. That's when conflict management skills come in.

As far as the rest... you're right. CB is dieing... I'll put this idea on hold, and help with other ideas.

I would like to answer this post more but it's getting late here
, however at the moment i'd like to comment on this.



I don't think that is a bad idea at all actually.
It's more private, and as an applicant you won't have to worry
about writing to impress both the staff and other applicants
and members. Perhaps, it might encourage applicants to be
more original, as they won't be reading each others, and
bascially saying the same things in different words.
It also might encourage more people to apply,
I wouldn't mind that at all. . .


I will post later about the other things.

^I really agree with that Katie, thats what I've been thinking the whole time about the whole applications being sent Via PM. More memebers wouldn't read other peoples applications, won't say the same thing and be more original throughout their posts.

Applications via PM doesn't seem like a bad idea at all.

Though, I think it'd still be a good idea if everyone at least knew who is applying.

^ I agree actually, perhaps a list could be put out and updated on who actually submitted an application via PM.
Maybe the list could be located in the "CB IS HIRING" thread,
or the main thread in Announcements.
Not really sure, just putting out ideas,
Because I think it would help having other people
know who else is applying.

Didn't Josh say something similar to making the applications via PM and then just make a topic listing all the names that sent in applications?


Anyways, I don't see how this would be bad, but do we really need the topic for everyone to critique each other and pretty much show favoritism to who they want to be on staff and who they don't?

It was some thing I could have just as easily lived without. It doesn't matter, so yea I guess I did change it for you. You said you had a problem with it. It was something that I didn't need. It was something I didn't care about. So, if it makes the world a happier place, and it doesn't effect me in the negative I don't have a problem changing it. No, I'm not twisting your words at all. You had problem with my calling the system "pathetic", it was something that I could change, so I changed it for you. You, no-one else said anything about it. If you didn't have a problem with it, then I'm sorry I assumed it bothered you, but my assumption stemmed from your your persistence to complain about me calling the hiring system pathetic.

I had a problem with it? Quote me, love, your accusations are confusing me. I like to make parallels, can you tell the difference? I get upset at the "you're going to Hell" folks and at Mr. Acid when he insists that uniforms are the worst things in the world, but I can't say anyone else on this forum has ever "upset" me. Wow, thanks for making the change though, yea, like I really, really needed it because it really, really upsets me... right.

Your assumption stemmed from the fact that you couldn't tell that I was mocking you =]

You're right, but like I said... I try the best at the things I do.
Well yea, just so we're clear on why I thought you're bitter.

You may think it is, I don't, and it depends... it's a matter of a opinion and past experience don't you think? If I have found giving reasons that mods are unqualified to be a waste of time, then I may feel it's like beating a dead horse. Maybe you have had better experience, but either way we are straying from the issue I have posted.
Well, you don't obviously or else you would have given up on this charade by now, but what is not obvious is why you don't think these topics are one and the same. No, we're not straying from the issue because it's a case of cause and effect. It's like a person talking about how bad another person is without telling folks why he/she thinks that way. It sounds like you're trying to avoid answering whenever you say that we're off topic... that's just me though.

Both, but mostly the drama... what if people who applied for the positions weren't allowed to post in the "CB is hiring" topic. That way, only members who weren't applying for staff could give their opinions, opinions would be far less bias, and therefore less drama would occur. Hmmm... lemme think more about this before you reply... I have to think of some ideas.
Go ahead. I think I see where you're going (but I'm often wrong). There's nothing wrong with banning applicants from posting in that thread, but I don't see how it can lessen drama.

I'm not change everything about the system, "Duchess of Dork" has definitely gotten through to me, and I'm open to ideas of how the system might be made more fair.
Well, good! But about fairness... like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

I'll agree with that.
=)

I'll agree with that.
=) =)

There's also good and bad competition, and the drama created in the hiring thread is usually good for bad competition. People stomping each other out with passive-aggressive comments towards one another = bad competition.
Really? I see it as, you have to defend yourself against accusations that aren't true. Mods can do that you know? Being a moderator doesn't mean you're a machine.

You're calling me names... a.k.a. You're calling me a Chicken... or assuming negative things, "You, my friend, obviously never stepped into the working world."...
But, maybe be a little more polite.

I'm calling you a chicken if you don't want to call out names of people who are unqualified to be staff because it'll give you "grief". If that's not chicken, what is it? Though, I am sorry about assuming you've never worked, that was arrogance on my part.

That's called a competitive debating... I'm not here to prove anyone wrong or win anything. I'm hear to learn why the current system is in place and possibly encourage people to question how far it is t it's participants. I'm not your opponent, I want to make this site better. One thing that I believe needs to change is the way that people are hired.
The first thing I thought of when I saw the title "the hiring system... pathetic", I thought, this person is out ot prove someone or something wrong. I wasn't the one calling it a debate anyway, I think the first one to say so is you. I'm just argumentative most of the time, but that's me, and that's normal, honest. But arguing isn't the same as debating and I was just being argumentative because it's my nature. Seriously, ask anyone. Once you use the word "debate" though, the word "opponent" goes along with it. (Now I'm being off topic).

I know that.
It sounded like you wanted me to do things your way for a moment there, so I wanted to make sure.

This is the information I'm interested in. Not senseless arguments that aren't going to lead anywhere. That's why I enjoyed "Duchess of Dork".
Whether or not arguments make sense depends on point of view =]

Conflict avoidance... it should be "conflict management". As a mod, you shouldn't start fights to begin with. You need to learn how to break them up. That's when conflict management skills come in.

While I agree here, conflict management shouldn't be outrageous though. There was a period of time I didn't want to post here because I thought the mods (and yes-men members) were exercising their modly powers a little too much. That died down real soon though, so I'm glad. There's good conflicts, too. Some people actually make friends with each other after a fight... If at the start of conflict things are forced to quiet down, bad feelings can simmer.

hey! that was a long time ago! i was young and immature! (uniforms still aren't that great though. too much like fast food.)

Well, I didn't say I'm still upset with you about that... Oh.. I said "upsets me". hahah, I guess it still bothers me that you were so damned stubborn...and that we never got ANYWHERE after so many pages of debating. but I guess I was stubborn, too. Yea, you know we cool.

i disagree with the idea of private applications. If we're going to have a commentary thread, then it helps to see why members want to be mods, which is part of the information covered in the applications.

Indeed, why the people want to be a mod, and why they think they'll be a good mod is just as important for members to know as it is for mods when discussing the hiring

Although what I'm going to say may be completely unrelated to the main point of this topic, I'm still going to say it.

I was hired with the process of mods' nominating regular members, and then the nominated members accepting or decling the nomination. In this way, the "applicants" (I should say nominees) had a more passive role. The hiring process was fine and it gave a chance for those who didn't want a staff position to actually consider being one. However, as vaguely as I remember, members complained that members who were not nominated by the mods could not apply. Also indirectly the hiring method lead to a number of mods stepping down due to being unable to be commited to their position.

What is my point? I just want to say that various hiring methods have been tried and so far I think this is the best (i.e. members applying in a topic + a topic in the Lounge for community feedback + admins/headstaff having the ultimate decision). :)

This is not unrelated at all.

,thankyou

In fact, thank you for all of your feedback.... I see why the current system is in place. Although, I see problems with it, and it could be perfected. I do see why it cannot be completely changed.

Perhaps everyone can be shown the applications themselves after they are all submitted, after a secondary deadline? Then commentary from the members, then the final discussions Backstage.

That would just take more time to do essentially the same thing...

Well, I was thinking making the deadline for applications earlier, and wait a little bit for commentary.

Anyway, I still think it would be a good idea to get the opinions of the members. Though, I guess this can still be done without having them read the applications.

I know, but i just dont see why that is any sort of change. Just start the commentary with the apps.

And I think that reason for wanting to be a mod, and why they think they ought to be a mod are two important things which people should take into account while making acommentary, and this is pretty much expresseddirectly only in the applications.

Well, I guess the whole point of (initially) private applications was to make sure the applications wouldn't get influenced by other applications.

It does seem like it would make everything a little more complicated though.

Oh, well i see that point, and fair enough.

But i just think it would take longer, and that peope copying other apps isn't really a big enough concern to be worth worrying about

Actually, I agree with Josh on this. Yet I also believe we should come to a compromise.

I say let members PM their applications so that no one else is influenced by it, then, on the first post of the discussion topic, list the members who are applying & their desired positions. The members' feedback will still count, but their comments will move away from the applications and be more about the applicants themselves.

That's what I'm leaning towards.

how about we also post the applications then? don't need to put names to them- let people spend all their time trying to figure out whose app is whose, and they won't have time left to stir up drama.