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

[*Uronacid*]

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

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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

[talcumpowder]

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

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

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

[sadolakced acid]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[*Uronacid*]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll agree with that.

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

I'll agree with that.

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

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

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

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

But, maybe be a little more polite.

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

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

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

I know that.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KissMe2408]

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

Applications should be submitted via PM.

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


I will post later about the other things.

[Intercourselyts]

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

[Simba]

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

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

[KissMe2408]

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

[Intercourselyts]

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


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

[Spirited Away]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll agree with that.
=)

I'll agree with that.
=) =)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sadolakced acid]

I get upset at the "you're going to Hell" folks and at Mr. Acid when he insists that uniforms are the worst things in the world, but I can't say anyone else on this forum has ever "upset" me.

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

[Spirited Away]

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

[*I Shot JFK*]

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

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

[gelionie]

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

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

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

[*Uronacid*]

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

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

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

This is not unrelated at all.

,thankyou

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

[Simba]

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

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

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

[*I Shot JFK*]

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

[Simba]

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

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

[*I Shot JFK*]

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

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

[Simba]

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

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

[*I Shot JFK*]

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

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

[radhikaeatsraman]

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

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

[Simba]

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

That's what I'm leaning towards.

[sadolakced acid]

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