The hiring system on this site..., *sigh* Options

[*Uronacid*]

Intro

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:

The CB 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"?

Bad or Good?

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.

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!

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!

HOW CAN WE AVOID THIS SHIT?!

- 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.

My thoughts, if anyone cares...

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

[*Uronacid*]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

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?

[*Uronacid*]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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

Now I ask you, how am I off topic?

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.

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 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".

[Spirited Away]

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.