Hiring Process Discussion |
  |
| *tweeak* |
 Oct 15 2005, 11:38 AM
Post
#76
|
|
Guest  |
QUOTE(Spiritual Winged Aura @ Oct 15 2005, 1:14 AM) 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. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 15 2005, 02:43 PM
Post
#77
|
|
 creepy heather  Group: Official Member Posts: 4,208 Joined: Aug 2004 Member No: 41,580 |
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) . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 15 2005, 08:59 PM
Post
#78
|
|
 Yawn Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 9,530 Joined: Nov 2004 Member No: 65,772 |
QUOTE(disco infiltrator @ Oct 15 2005, 12:48 AM) 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. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 15 2005, 09:14 PM
Post
#79
|
|
 dripping destruction Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 |
can someone explain to me why an arbitrary limit would be good?
|
|
|
|
| *disco infiltrator* |
Oct 15 2005, 09:17 PM
Post
#80
|
|
Guest |
I already did, were you reading what I was posting?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 15 2005, 09:23 PM
Post
#81
|
|
|
dripping destruction Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 |
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* |
Oct 15 2005, 09:36 PM
Post
#82
|
|
Guest |
Well then can you explain to me what's so bad about a limit? Why it's so important that it be changed?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 15 2005, 09:49 PM
Post
#83
|
|
|
dripping destruction Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 16 2005, 07:40 AM
Post
#84
|
|
 Another ditch in the road... you keep moving Group: Member Posts: 6,281 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 85,152 |
QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Oct 16 2005, 3:23 AM) 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* |
Oct 16 2005, 08:16 AM
Post
#85
|
|
Guest |
Aye.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 16 2005, 02:56 PM
Post
#86
|
|
|
creepy heather Group: Official Member Posts: 4,208 Joined: Aug 2004 Member No: 41,580 |
2 months sounds good. yup
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 16 2005, 03:07 PM
Post
#87
|
|
|
Another ditch in the road... you keep moving Group: Member Posts: 6,281 Joined: Jan 2005 Member No: 85,152 |
^
aww... if you say 'aye' you can pretend to be a pirate... |
|
|
|
|
Oct 16 2005, 03:25 PM
Post
#88
|
|
|
creepy heather Group: Official Member Posts: 4,208 Joined: Aug 2004 Member No: 41,580 |
ok, aye!
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 16 2005, 04:08 PM
Post
#89
|
|
|
Yawn Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 9,530 Joined: Nov 2004 Member No: 65,772 |
Nay. i say 2 months is too short. Atleast 3 or 4.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 16 2005, 04:10 PM
Post
#90
|
|
|
dripping destruction Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 |
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* |
Oct 16 2005, 04:12 PM
Post
#91
|
|
Guest |
Two months is NOT too long.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 16 2005, 04:23 PM
Post
#92
|
|
|
dripping destruction Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 |
well, it looks like the vote's going to come down to two months.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 16 2005, 06:27 PM
Post
#93
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Posts: 8,274 Joined: Mar 2004 Member No: 8,001 |
2 months, ninja ... please.
|
|
|
|
| *mzkandi* |
Oct 16 2005, 06:40 PM
Post
#94
|
|
Guest |
QUOTE(Heathasm @ Oct 16 2005, 4:25 PM) 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* |
Oct 16 2005, 08:02 PM
Post
#95
|
|
Guest |
aye
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 16 2005, 09:25 PM
Post
#96
|
|
|
dripping destruction Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 7,282 Joined: Jun 2004 Member No: 21,929 |
QUOTE(mzkandi @ Oct 16 2005, 6:40 PM) 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* |
Oct 16 2005, 11:23 PM
Post
#97
|
|
Guest |
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* |
Oct 17 2005, 06:36 AM
Post
#98
|
|
Guest |
^ Michael has been here a little longer than that, since may 2005 I believe.
|
|
|
|
| *disco infiltrator* |
Oct 17 2005, 07:10 AM
Post
#99
|
|
Guest |
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* |
Oct 17 2005, 07:17 AM
Post
#100
|
|
Guest |
^ 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.
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: