Hiring Process Discussion Options

[*incoherent*]

^ Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. The most obivious issue for discussion would be hiring. So why not make a seperate thread so we can all start brain storming ideas. We can also make seperate threads for other things we would like to discuss.

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

[*brownsugar08*]

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

[*mzkandi*]

^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.

[*mipadi*]

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.

[*mzkandi*]

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.

You're right about the declining part, but a applicant doesn't necessarily have to be on all 3 of our "accept" lists to be chosen. There is also a "neutral" list. As long as the member is not in any 3 of our "decline" lists, then they are eligible to become a mod. I may have said too much. I'm not sure if we're allowed to discuss the process with the regular members, but eh, you started it. 

[*incoherent*]

First off, I like the idea of endorsements and also regular member endorsements because it gets both the mods and regular members involved.

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.

[*brownsugar08*]

I'm against community voting

Me too.

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

[*tweeak*]

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.

[*mipadi*]

Me too.

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

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.

[*mzkandi*]

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

[*mipadi*]

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

[*brownsugar08*]

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.

[*tweeak*]

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

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

[*mipadi*]

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.

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.

[*mzkandi*]

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

[*mipadi*]

If they can point out that a topic needs to be moved or closed without being obnoxious, that's a major plus.

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?

[*mzkandi*]

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.

[*tweeak*]

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.

[*brownsugar08*]

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.

[*disco infiltrator*]

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.

[*mipadi*]

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.

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.

[*tweeak*]

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)

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.

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[*mzkandi*]

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

[sadolakced acid]

anyone who cares enough to vote.

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

[Heathasm]

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

[*tweeak*]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[BrokenDream]

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.

[Heathasm]

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

and others. I am not saying that the current mods aren't doing a great job. they are doing great. flowers.gif 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 every one applied was friendly polite and helpful-i think that the endorsments helped filter it to that point-and the best were picked

[sadolakced acid]

did anyone NOT get endorsements?

do you know how many endorsements basick got?

i rest my case.

[Heathasm]

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

[*mzkandi*]

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 .

[sadolakced acid]

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

[*incoherent*]

^  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?

[KissMe2408]

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....

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[KissMe2408]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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

making new topic.

[*tweeak*]

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)

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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

[KissMe2408]

QUOTE(tweeak @ Oct 12 2005, 9:30 PM)
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)

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

[*incoherent*]

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?

[*mzkandi*]

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 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)

I like that idea.

[sadolakced acid]

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

but enough about that.

[racoons > you]

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.

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.

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)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.

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

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

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

//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

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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..

[racoons > you]

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

[*tweeak*]

I turned down a couple of people too.

[demolished]

(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?

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

(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.

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

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

[Heathasm]

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

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

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

6 months is a long time.

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

[Heathasm]

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

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

[*mipadi*]

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

6 months is a long time. 

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

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

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

[*mona lisa*]

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

[sadolakced acid]

it would.

say you have a six month limit.

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

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

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

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

[*mona lisa*]

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

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

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

[sadolakced acid]

but they should still be considered.

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


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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

it's just delaying newbie crash.

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

[demolished]

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


This idea came out of my creativity.



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

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

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

*Drools* banana.

[*mzkandi*]

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

uhhh..no. Nice try though.

Three pages and no resolve. Yessssss!

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

[*tweeak*]

Hm. What about putting those so called “future mod” in a another group as label? Let them stand out in the crowd and prove themselves that they can provide dedications and contributions to the community for a month or so with no moderator power yet.  The roles of moderator should be given and followed too! The moderators, half moderators, and administrations will decide whether they can actually lend them the power.
This idea came out of my creativity. 
But, I’m afraid that this person would get so sick and tired of createBlog after awhile so... they might decided to ruin our community. Everyone would panic just like when createBlog was hacked about a couple of months ago.
*Drools* banana.

Hahaha

no.

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

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

[Heathasm]

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

[KissMe2408]

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

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

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

[sadolakced acid]

yea.

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

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

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

[racoons > you]

yea. 

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

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

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

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

perhaps we should have a vote.

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

aye.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Aye.

[Heathasm]

2 months sounds good. yup

[racoons > you]

^

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

[Heathasm]

ok, aye!

[KissMe2408]

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

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

[*tweeak*]

Two months is NOT too long.

[sadolakced acid]

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

[demolished]

2 months, ninja ... please.

[*mzkandi*]

ok, aye!

hahaha....cute.

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

[*incoherent*]

aye

[sadolakced acid]

hahaha....cute.

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

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

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

[*mzkandi*]

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

[*mzkandi*]

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