the moderator hiring process, the completion of Options

[micron]

there are a couple of things you guys missed when voting in the mod hiring process. it should be more comprehensive and should include:

-alloted time for the different steps of the process, for example, one week for nominations, three days for nominees accepting... etc
-where its being held and that a supplimentary discussion topic will be created in the lounge
-how exactly will admins come up with the final decisions? its better that we make everything transparent.



a tip when writing / amending bylaws, remember to ask and include:

-why? why do we need this?
-what? all the whats, ie what abilities do have members have?
-when? when should it take place?
-who? who should be involved?
-where? where should it take place?
-how? how exactly will it take place?

[micron]

also posted this backstage and i quote:

oh yea, about the voting process; in the forums, you can only vote for one person, meaning even if you think there are more than one person thats qualified, you can only place your vote for one. this usually exaggerates the results in favor of one person if he is clearly most qualified for the job, in expense of all the others, thereby discouraging the rest to think the cb communtiy views them disfavorablely as a potential staff member.

... not sure if this was mentioned when making the hiring bylaws, but this should definitely be reconsidered.

[micron]

another from backstage,

Well, the community can only vote for one, out of the present nominations.

Then, Heads & Admins take both the input from the mods and the input from the community along with their own thoughts on the nominees and deliberate from there, similar to past deliberations.

i know. hmm, i guess im not doing a good job explaining.

the idea is good and all, but a problem arises if there's an exceptionally qualified person out of the nominees. for example, let say that theres four nominees to vote from. all of them are qualified, but one is exceptionally qualified. because only one person can be voted, the exceptionally qualified person will end up with most of the votes. thats all good and all for the exceptionally qualified person, but for the other three, who in this example are still qualified, their votes will be under represented, giving a false sense that they were not wanted as staff members by the community.

what i am trying to say is that i do not agree with the principle of the system. a system should be devised to ask 'are they qualified?' rather than 'who is most qualified?'. a 'who are the "x" most qualified?' can work, where "x" is the number of positions available.


and what do you mean by 'input from the mods and the input from the community'? a set standard way of deciding among the head+admins should be outlined. im trying to leave out all ambiguities...

[add1cted2f1re]

well that seems a lot more fair than the way voting for stuff like this usually goes! thanks

[micron]

well that seems a lot more fair than the way voting for stuff like this usually goes! thanks

what do you mean?

[Heathasm]

-alloted time for the different steps of the process, for example, one week for nominations, three days for nominees accepting... etc

i think a week for nominations and a week for voting with three days to get the data out to the public sounds fine actually

-where its being held and that a supplimentary discussion topic will be created in the lounge

announcments, maybe?

-how exactly will admins come up with the final decisions? its better that we make everything transparent.

i think that it should go souley on how the voting comes out, since its already been through two processes

oh yea, about the voting process; in the forums, you can only vote for one person, meaning even if you think there are more than one person thats qualified, you can only place your vote for one. this usually exaggerates the results in favor of one person if he is clearly most qualified for the job, in expense of all the others, thereby discouraging the rest to think the cb communtiy views them disfavorablely as a potential staff member.

i think that the number of slots for each position should be voted on and not just one to prevent this but that means we cant have a poll

[*incoherent*]

i think that it should go souley on how the voting comes out, since its already been through two processes

i think that is a good idea as well. the mods pick the people who they feel qualified anyways and then the community votes on it, so why have the admins pick? they should be allowed to nominate people as well.

from there, you can take the top X amount of people and mod them. i know itd be different per election.

[*mzkandi*]

-alloted time for the different steps of the process, for example, one week for nominations, three days for nominees accepting... etc
-where its being held and that a supplimentary discussion topic will be created in the lounge
-how exactly will admins come up with the final decisions? its better that we make everything transparent.

I think nominations should be submitted in 5 days. It really doesnt take that long to gather nominations seeing as how mods already know who they think should be considered for a staff positon. Voting should be take place for 3 days. However, I think the final decision for should be a mod needs more than one day to decide. Sometimes up to a week is needed to decide these types of things.

I think nominations should be placed in Announcements and discussion threads open in both the lounge (for members) and backstage for staff.

I dont think it should be based solely on how voting turns out. Yes, voting influences a large part of process but I still think head/admin input should be last of the deciding factors. They would take in account the member's history, how active that person is, etc. etc. We as staff member will be doing that too but an admin/head staff added judgement is also needed. Also, they will have the dicussion thread backstage with staff member input to also base the decision off of.

[*disco infiltrator*]

I agree with Kiera. Heads/Admins should use mod and community input, but both of those should count for a quarter of their decision each. The other half will be their own opinions.

[racoons > you]

^

i agree with that. although, how do we decied what constitutes a quarter of the decision? or is that just theoretical?

how about, for timings, a week, or until all mods have nominated (whichever happens first), week for voting, and three days for final decison

[*not_your_average*]

You think we should close this since the moderating hiring process has already started?

[*mona lisa*]

I don't know. Three days for the final decision seems a bit short to me. Choosing Head Staff was hard enough for Christina and I because we had awesome candidated to choose from.

As well, I think letting the admins and Jusun have final say is best.

[racoons > you]

You think we should close this since the moderating hiring process has already started?

no.

we can easily resolve this within a week, which seems to be the amount of time being thrown about leave nominations open for.

and mona, i sympathise... you would know, you've done it directly... how long do you think admins/heads will need? 5 days? a week?

as for jusun... he does a phenomenaljob for cb, and it is HIS site. but... and this is perfectly understandable.. he isnt on a lot. i dont know exactly how much direct input he should have. there is a reason he isnt actually an adminsitrator

[*mona lisa*]

5 days or a week. Either is fine. Well, a week may be too much. 5 days should be enough because 3 days is difficult with Christina living in a different timezone than Jusun and I.

[Retrogressive]

Shouldn't the mod nominations be behind the scenes so members won't be angry at the mods for not nominating them? I mean, there could be a thread about who WAS nominated but not who nominated them.

And I also think the mod community should considered who CB would like to see as a Mod as well as their own opinions.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, that's why there's that thread. :]

Just because some of the people that were mentioned in the thread in the Lounge aren't here doesn't mean they weren't considered. Simply means those who posted don't agree.

Also, I didn't think they should be so public either; that was on Jusun's accord. Though, I have no problem letting people know my opinions, others might if one of their friends gets mad at them for not nominating them.

[Retrogressive]

Also, I didn't think they should be so public either; that was on Jusun's accord. Though, I have no problem letting people know my opinions, others might if one of their friends gets mad at them for not nominating them.

Also, some mods might feel pressured to vote for someone. I'm not saying the mods now will but in the future, I think the mods are doing a great job in picking nominees. But it could get ugly if someone didn't get "nominated" by a mod. That's why I think all of that should be behind the scenes, and a thread should be updated every so often with anonymous nominations...

[*incoherent*]

i think they are fine as they are. people are still going to get mad when the polls are made, so why not just make it public now?

[Retrogressive]

At least a mod wouldn't be publically critisized by a stupid member for not being nominated, why start drama when you can create a better solution???

[*incoherent*]

well they are still going to be critisized nonetheless with p/ms saying "why didnt you nominate me?" because they will still find out their "friend" didnt nominate them because they didnt make the list.

[Retrogressive]

Yes, and that's why the mods consider community input but not base everything on it. Plus, the mods are the leaders of CB I think they deserve this to be in private so they don't HAVE to put up with people being angry with them.

[sadolakced acid]

yea, i think it might be better if nominations were backstage, and alist of nominated people was updated for the public.

but i'm not really seeing that there's going to be quite a big problem with the nominations. i don't see people merely putting thier friends.

[racoons > you]

actually, i think that, where there have been calls of mod 'favourtism' in the past, putting nominations in the public domain will help to dispell some of these concerns

[Retrogressive]

That's a good point.

[demolished]

I have another idea.

Only one administration would give any member a code number to nominate but a member must post as a guest, no cB account.

[*incoherent*]

^
that wouldnt work because you cant post anonymously in the lounge.

[*mzkandi*]

I have another idea.

I have another idea as well, please respond to my pm.

[sadolakced acid]

what could be done is that mod nominations are PMed to one person who puts them in the thread.

thus, the only way to know who nominated would be to do writing style analysis.

[*incoherent*]

^
doesnt sound like a bad idea...maybe put and admin or someone else in charge of collecting all the nominations and make a closed post.

[sadolakced acid]

^ probably just an active mod, no need to further burden the top.

[*mzkandi*]

I personally dont see anything wrong with the way we have it now. The only other thing I can think up is posting nominations backstage with the reason why mods nominated then have a moderator posting the names in announcements.

[racoons > you]

i dont fully understand that, stephen

[*incoherent*]

whos stephen?

Spiritual Winged Aura?

[*mzkandi*]

^That would be correct.

[*incoherent*]

oh...well what did he say that you didnt get?

[*mzkandi*]

^ James is the one who didnt get what he said.

[*incoherent*]

thats who it was directed to. sorry for the confusion.

[racoons > you]

i didnt understand the suggestion he made

[micron]

ok guys, discussion is good and all, but the alloted times, proccesses, etc, should be formalized into the bylaws. thats why i started this topic, to include the specifics into the bylaws to iron out all the ambiguities.

also, the polling system WILL NOT WORK, since people can only vote for ONE candidate, favoring the exceptionally qualified above all others. not to mention results can easily be manipulated by registering multiple accounts to place a vote. unless the bylaws committee come up with something else, im considering skipping that entire process. please keep in mind that this is perfectly okay, as the bylaws currently give a working guideline more than anything else, at least until it is finalized. to be finalized, it it must be approved by the admins + me. so please please mindful of the admins + my requests.

and the comment regarding why the nominations are in public - i purposefully made it public, so that everyone can scrutinize each staff members nominee's. because they are accountable for their decisions, this will lead to, hopefully, more qualified nominee's.

[Heathasm]

unless we can find some sort of alternate poll that allows more than one choice were going to HAVE to manually count up the votes when the time comes . . . and that way we can check ips to insure no duplicate acct voting

[sadolakced acid]

unless it's voting backstage, by mods. then even if you make a new account it's not able to vote.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well, the polls were for the community, not the mods...

Yea, I suppose we'll just have a thread, and people will post their input there? Like before? Mhm...

We don't really have to count them up anyway. The thread will just be used as community input.

[sadolakced acid]

three guesses who'd be first in a comunity poll, and the first two don't count.

:cough:michael:cough:

[racoons > you]

i dunno, justin... i bet you coul give him a good run

[misoshiru]

i found the accepting of the nominations a bit short, especially since it's thanksgiving weekend.

[micron]

hi all,
this time, im going forgo the polls and create a thread in the lounge to count as community input. hope everyone's fine with that. in the meantime, if you are serious about getting the bylaws together, i encourage you to be proactive about it. you dont need to be a bylaw committee member to make a difference!

[demolished]

I'm not stephen. I'm STEVEN.

^
that wouldnt work because you cant post anonymously in the lounge.

Um. I thought it's going to be in this forum. Oh well.

[*mzkandi*]

Well to be fair, if you were around more we know that :/

i found the accepting of the nominations a bit short, especially since it's thanksgiving weekend.

Adding on to that, I think we are going to need more than a day to make a decision on the new hiring staff. Past hirings have taken up to a week to decide.

[misoshiru]

^ hahah no, i got confused about the time deadlines because of the time differences. at first, i thought jusun meant 12:00 in the morning, but then, later on, he pmed me and told me that it was at 11:59 at night.

[Mulder]

Well to be fair, if you were around more we know that :/
Adding on to that, I think we are going to need more than a day to make a decision on the new hiring staff. Past hirings have taken up to a week to decide.

to really make a fair, informed decision, i think you would need to. a lot of the staff dont know most of the people nominated, so how can they judge them in a day?

[*mona lisa*]

In a day? I thought the new staff would be announced hopefully by December 3rd?

[*mzkandi*]

^ Yeah, plus we have dicussion thread backstage so we can go over nominee in detail until Dec. 3rd

[misoshiru]

would it be okay to open a thread for discussions on the nominatees or whatever you call them in the lounge?

edit. whoops never mind what i said up there.

[Fabio.]

I hope this isn't too off-topic, but how much of the staff decision is influenced by the discussion in the lounge? It's kind of hairy and hard to follow. How much of the staff decision comes from the CB members, and how much comes from the existing staff?

[*mzkandi*]

^ Community input is taken in consideration however a bluk decison is based off of staff indepth discussion of each nominee and who we think would be best on our staff and who we would work best with as a team.

[Fabio.]

Okay, thanks Kiera! I think I understand a bit more.

[racoons > you]

when did we propose a day to finalize the decision? that's ridiculous

[*mzkandi*]

^huh?

[racoons > you]

you said something about more than a day to choose the mdos... but then i realized it wasnt on the las tpage, so presumably it has been resolved

[*mzkandi*]

^ Oh yeah, its been taken care of.

[misoshiru]

kierraaaa..what did you mean by a

bluk decision

?

[hi-C]

^ I believe she meant "bulk" decision, meaning that the factors that effect the staff that she listed in that post - who the staff thinks is best, staff compatibility - are taken into consideration when making a final decision on new moderators.

[*mzkandi*]

^ Thanks, Carrie =) Yes, thats what I meant.

[*Guest*]

i think we also need to discuss the way reappointment fits into the hiring process.

i mean, peopl ehave talked about one of the disadvantages of jeff being remodded is that he stepped down. yet eve has just been remodded straight back to her head staff position. and jackie was remodded numerous times.

does it relate to how long they were a mod? or how long it has been since they stepped down?

[Mulder]

i think we also need to discuss the way reappointment fits into the hiring process.

i mean, peopl ehave talked about one of the disadvantages of jeff being remodded is that he stepped down. yet eve has just been remodded straight back to her head staff position. and jackie was remodded numerous times.

does it relate to how long they were a mod? or how long it has been since they stepped down?

i think if you're remodded, you shouldnt immediately be put back in a head staff/admin/design staff position, because they were demodded/stepped down for a reason. i do think that old mods should be considered for mods now..but not above those who were never mods before.

[whomps]

i think if you're remodded, you shouldnt immediately be put back in a head staff/admin/design staff position, because they were demodded/stepped down for a reason. i do think that old mods should be considered for mods now..but not above those who were never mods before.

Why does it matter if they stepped down themselves ? I can see what you mean if they were demodded for a reason... but ?
For Head Staff and Admins... you have to be a regular mod to be appointed to Head Staff and you have to be a Head Staff to be appointed to Admin. So why would that destroy the chances of new people applying for staff ?

And I've never heard of the disadvantages of Jeff being remodded is because he stepped down. Where've you heard that from ?

[sadolakced acid]

i think the conditions of thier resignation must be considered.

for instance, someone who resigns because they have something they must do and no longer has time to be a mod should most likely be immediatly remodded.

however, someone who resigns over controversy should be treated differently.

also, lenght of time they were unmodded must be considered also.

[Heathasm]

i think the whole point of not modding people into the higher positions is because we dont know know how well the person can moderate the forums . . . in previous mod cases the knowledge is already there. so, why not?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Eve and Jackie never said they stepped down indefinitely. It was somewhat of a "break" period. This has happened MANY times before. They never said, "I don't want to be a mod anymore, ever, goodbye!" and never came back. They came back.

However, personally, I think this sort of break-and-then-come-back thing should only happen once with each person. But that's just me.

[whomps]

Ahhh, resignation over controversy. Good point.

[Mulder]

i meant that if someone stepped down because they didnt care then, and now they say they do, or something like that..that that needs to be taken into consideration.

[sadolakced acid]

well, i see moderators stepping down for breaks and, in some cases, over controversy, as showing responsibility and maturity.

[*toonekked*]

so when can new people apply, and when will the new staff be annouced? If we can apply, can someone please give a link.

[*toonekked*]

[/spam]? ^damnit.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

You can post with unregistered accounts?

[*ranniel*]

yes, I think so. ^ micron enabled guests to post.

[*Libertie*]

will separate into two forums if theres too many discussions, one for committee discussions and the other for public discussions. in the meantime, one will have to do.

guests may posts.

So yeah, guests can post.. But I was actually unaware until now that you have the option of using a name other than "guest". That, I'm assuming, is what happened when "toonekked" made a post and showed up as unregistered.

[*incoherent*]

alright, whoever that was just changed the guest name which is enabled if you are posting in this forum. its not trish's old username, it's just what the person typed in and since they are a guest, it says they are unregistered.

[YourSuperior]

^Can you not see the IP address, since you're a by laws mod?

[*incoherent*]

^nope

we only have modding powers.

[*disco infiltrator*]

I can see IPs; I know who it is, it's not Trish, and it's not a problem.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

Since when was seeing IP addresses not a mod power? Checking, sure, but we should still be able to see them, no?

[*disco infiltrator*]

They only have closing/moving/etc. powers.

[*incoherent*]

yeah, we have all the powers EXCPET seeing ips.

[*ranniel*]

umm thats just Teresa (umm yeah i forgot her sn). yeah she's a big fan of Trish, so yeah she was posting as toonekked on my computer.

[xosteffanator]

question: why has this topic been bumped?
the modding process is over-it was over months ago.
or are we nominating people again?
one of the mods should close this if we're not.....

[*mzkandi*]

...meh.

[Rachel]

question: why has this topic been bumped?
the modding process is over-it was over months ago.
or are we nominating people again?
one of the mods should close this if we're not.....

Well, even if they aren't hiring, what is the harm in feedback? That way, staff can have input from the very beginning to now "monnnths later".


I don't see why this needs to be closed.

[*incoherent*]

i knew someone would reopen this.

i just didnt want to be the one to do it.

[Rachel]

Well it is pointless to close it because one person thinks it is pointless.

[*mzkandi*]

I figured someone would reopen this too.
Anyways, that's kind of what we have this thread for....
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=113073
This thread has nothing to do with feedback about the actual hiring process.