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

[*mona lisa*]

Well, the moderators are going to interact a lot with the community, so shouldn't it be fair to allow the members to openly critique those who are applying?

He means that the applicants shouldn't be allowed to comment on the other applicants.

Certain members that apply get lots of praise because they are good friends with the top 10-15 most active members of the community. members of the community, and other members aren't acknowledged at all.

Not true. What do you mean by not acknowledged at all? If you're talking about those that are active in the Resource Center, that statement would still be untrue. Perhaps it seems that certain members get more praise than others but if it's with good reason, what's the harm in publicly praising them? I'm sure it would be almost always obvious to the staff if an applicant is praised out of friendship and if he/she is praised based on qualifications.

Allowing applicants to openly critique another's application is definitely opening the door for biased and unfair opinions.

Is that completely the system's fault? I personally don't think so. Of course there is the possibility of members giving biased or unfair opinions but it works both ways. You have those who do just that and you have those who give their honest and unbiased opinions. If all members gave their honest and unbiased opinions, there wouldn't be any issues.

The staff definitely does need training after their hired. Every job has some sort of required training, why shouldn't CB have one?

What sort of "training"? There is a topic Backstage that lists general rules and guidelines for moderators to follow. It lists pretty much everything. But of course, a mod should use his/her best judgement in any situation. For that, a training period won't do much. If there are any questions, it's up to the newbie moderator to ask. But perhaps we could have a thread listing hypothetical situations and list what the best solution(s) would be.

Not that I'm completely opposed to having such a training period, but please stop constantly comparing CB to a real company. CB is definitely not trying to mock a real company. There are certain things that will and always will work and be done differently. If something is used by real companies but it doesn't seem to work well on CB, I don't think it should be used just because real companies/jobs do it.

The method you brought up wouldn't work as well as the current system does. Having been here long enough to have experienced and participated in the three types of methods (giving a yes, no, or neutral opinion on each applicant, nominations, and applications), it seems that this method works best for CB. At least at this point in time, anyway.

[Intercourselyts]

^For the whole training period. I don't really see it all that nesscary for the people staff, I think you need to use your best judgement for that position. But I think the training session could be extremely useful for the design positions. The whole accepting and rejecting items throughout the admin cp. knowing what exactly could be written in the rejected letters and what could be the best thing. Also what needs to be done throughout the scripts and knowing what scripts are really nesscary and others that aren't so much. Also for graphics, someone needs to finish that one topic in the graphics that I hope you know what I'm talking about so it can also help at accepting and rejecting graphics.

[*mona lisa*]

^For the whole training period. I don't really see it all that nesscary for the people staff, I think you need to use your best judgement for that position. But I think the training session could be extremely useful for the design positions. The whole accepting and rejecting items throughout the admin cp. knowing what exactly could be written in the rejected letters and what could be the best thing. Also what needs to be done throughout the scripts and knowing what scripts are really nesscary and others that aren't so much. Also for graphics, someone needs to finish that one topic in the graphics that I hope you know what I'm talking about so it can also help at accepting and rejecting graphics.

Sure; it wouldn't be difficult to come up with a template for a rejection letter.

I don't really understand what you mean by what scripts are necessary and what are not. Elaborate please?

Yeah, that thread is going to be finished eventually.

[Intercourselyts]

Some scripts people submit are not nesscary at all, and if you combine a few scripts throughout the script section you could easily accomplish just what they submitted.

[*Uronacid*]

Is that completely the system's fault? I personally don't think so. Of course there is the possibility of members giving biased or unfair opinions but it works both ways. You have those who do just that and you have those who give their honest and unbiased opinions. If all members gave their honest and unbiased opinions, there wouldn't be any issues.

I would think that it would make the system more fair. If you are competing with someone for a specific position and you are critiquing that individual for the position that you are competing for, then your opinion is bound to be skewed due to the fact that you're both competing for the same position. If members have opinions and evaluations it's far less bias than that of an individual who is actual participating in the competition.

You can't rely on people to give unbiased and honest opinions because they're vision of that individual can be distorted by so many factors that don't relate to an applicants ability to do their job effectively. Therefore you need to fine tune the system to get the best results. Think of the system as a filter. It won't filter out everything, but it will filter a lot of the garbage.

^For the whole training period. I don't really see it all that nesscary for the people staff, I think you need to use your best judgement for that position. But I think the training session could be extremely useful for the design positions. The whole accepting and rejecting items throughout the admin cp. knowing what exactly could be written in the rejected letters and what could be the best thing. Also what needs to be done throughout the scripts and knowing what scripts are really nesscary and others that aren't so much. Also for graphics, someone needs to finish that one topic in the graphics that I hope you know what I'm talking about so it can also help at accepting and rejecting graphics.

Right, from my point of view people's staff seems like a baby sitting job... it's easy enough, and you could use FAQ to explain the details, the majority the job requires good soft skills. Members with design staff jobs on the other hand require technical (hard) skills that may need a training session.

[*I Shot JFK*]

Ok. You guys keep saying that the opinions people give ought to be based on the way people act around the forums, rather than how well they are liked, or how popular they are.

The people who are well liked ARE, fo rthe most part, the ones who act 'best' around the forums. That is WHY people like them. Being a mod (well, people staff), require very few SPECIFICALLY identifiable skills. It is more about interacting well with the community, and if someone has been doing so, thus proving their qualifications, then they WILL be well liked.

Therefore, allowing members to express who they like (which, as you seem to have over looked, is FAR from the only thing which happens in commentary threads), is useful to mods, as the way which members view potential mods is almost certanly directly related to the way they act.

The most mature or whatever person in the world could apply, but if no one knew who they were, or a lot of people didn't like them, then they HAVE been doing something wrong, and they SHOULDNT get the job. Like it or not, popularity with the people will always be a factor in choosing people staff, and therefor eit is best if this 'research' if you like is expressed directly to the mods...

[*Uronacid*]

Ok. You guys keep saying that the opinions people give ought to be based on the way people act around the forums, rather than how well they are liked, or how popular they are.

The people who are well liked ARE, fo rthe most part, the ones who act 'best' around the forums. That is WHY people like them. Being a mod (well, people staff), require very few SPECIFICALLY identifiable skills. It is more about interacting well with the community, and if someone has been doing so, thus proving their qualifications, then they WILL be well liked.

Therefore, allowing members to express who they like (which, as you seem to have over looked, is FAR from the only thing which happens in commentary threads), is useful to mods, as the way which members view potential mods is almost certanly directly related to the way they act.

The most mature or whatever person in the world could apply, but if no one knew who they were, or a lot of people didn't like them, then they HAVE been doing something wrong, and they SHOULDNT get the job. Like it or not, popularity with the people will always be a factor in choosing people staff, and therefor eit is best if this 'research' if you like is expressed directly to the mods...

Right, I agree with you. Popularity is important, and I see why the system is in place. I just don't think that applicants should be able to critique other applicants in the hiring thread.

Members should have a say in who is hired. Applicants are in the process of being hired, and therefore shouldn't be critiquing others or "voting" because their opinions are biased. If they are asked a question then by-all-means answer it. I just don't think they shouldn't be judging other applicants especially when they are competing for the same position.

[*I Shot JFK*]

The best applicants will be those who can critique well and fairly. It's a chance for them to show that they know what the job entails, and who will be able to do it well.

Likewise, if they ARE being biased and/or inappropriate in tehir critiques, then it helps the mods to see that they SHOULDN'T be hired. The whole process is useful.

[*Uronacid*]

The best applicants will be those who can critique well and fairly. It's a chance for them to show that they know what the job entails, and who will be able to do it well.

Likewise, if they ARE being biased and/or inappropriate in tehir critiques, then it helps the mods to see that they SHOULDN'T be hired. The whole process is useful.

James can you honestly tell? People can't see bias. It just happens. You could be mistaking biased opinions for unbiased opinions. The best way to receive an unbiased opinion is to fine tune the system.

I doubt the best mods are the mods who know how to critique their peers the best.

[*I Shot JFK*]

If you can't see it, then why are you so sure that it's there? And why are you so sure that the mods can't see it.

And I said that knowing what it takes to be a mod is one of the prerequisits to becoming a mod. And if you can critique your peers well, then you are demonstrating this ability. So it does make a difference. If you can perceive what you need to do, then that is the first step towards doing it.

[*Uronacid*]

If you can't see it, then why are you so sure that it's there? And why are you so sure that the mods can't see it.

And I said that knowing what it takes to be a mod is one of the prerequisits to becoming a mod. And if you can critique your peers well, then you are demonstrating this ability. So it does make a difference. If you can perceive what you need to do, then that is the first step towards doing it.

James we'll just have to agree to disagree... *sigh* this is circular.... >.>

If you would like me to explain, then I will.

[multifaceted]

The people who are well liked ARE, fo rthe most part, the ones who act 'best' around the forums. That is WHY people like them. Being a mod (well, people staff), require very few SPECIFICALLY identifiable skills. It is more about interacting well with the community, and if someone has been doing so, thus proving their qualifications, then they WILL be well liked.

The most mature or whatever person in the world could apply, but if no one knew who they were, or a lot of people didn't like them, then they HAVE been doing something wrong, and they SHOULDNT get the job. Like it or not, popularity with the people will always be a factor in choosing people staff, and therefor eit is best if this 'research' if you like is expressed directly to the mods...

I believe that for applicants who want to be considered for People Staff, what you stated should apply. As for other areas, this should not.

What is your meaning of "best" in the first sentence? Most popular? Well liked? Not afraid to say what they think?

[*Duchess of Dork*]

To clarify (in my opinion), popularity should not be a determining factor in the hiring process. Well liked helps, of course, but isn't necessarily a qualification either.

I can tell you first hand, that even if you *are* hired, it isn't at all indicative of whether or not you are popular or well liked. I can honestly say this, with full confidence considering that I:

a) am hardly popular here
b) have had a number of people express their dislike for me (at one time or another)

Just saying...

I really would like know one thing (at least one thing at this point):

Is the problem here an issue with the Hiring System itself? Or is the problem allowing people (including fellow applicants) to express their opinions regarding those who have applied for a position?

[*I Shot JFK*]

I believe that for applicants who want to be considered for People Staff, what you stated should apply. As for other areas, this should not.

What is your meaning of "best" in the first sentence? Most popular? Well liked? Not afraid to say what they think?

that' and old post, but i think i was quoting someone else when i said "best"... josh maybe. so it was his definition

[*Uronacid*]

Is the problem here an issue with the Hiring System itself? Or is the problem allowing people (including fellow applicants) to express their opinions regarding those who have applied for a position?

You have shown me why the system is in play, and I understand now.

This is my only problem:
allowing fellow applicants to express their opinions regarding those who have applied for a position

[*Azarel*]

Regardless of whether or not there's a thread for people to express their opinions on applicants, members will discuss it anyway, whether it be via PM, private IM, or the chat room.

The separate thread is in place because the members of the community colletively have a better impression of the potential new moderators than just the moderating team. Staff can only have seen applicants so much here and there, but because the community is made of so many more people, they may know the applicants better.

Yes, this system is always open to bias and unfair judgement, but if I remember correctly (I could be wrong), the separate thread was a compromise between the staff and the community so that each have a say in who becomes staff. Before the thread was instated, the issue was that only current staff had a voice in who was modded, and it was unfair because it was the community that the new mods would be working for.. so ya. (I hope that sense, I'm sick and delirious. D: )

[*I Shot JFK*]

Perhaps the answer is to more strictly police the members' thread, so as to avoid any bashing, rather than doing away with it.

[*Uronacid*]

Perhaps the answer is to more strictly police the members' thread, so as to avoid any bashing, rather than doing away with it.

I'm not suggesting we do away with it.... I believe members should be able to post, but not applicants.

[iDecay]

Josh, wouldn't this interfere with what you believe in? That everyone on here should speak freely of what they think and be open minded?

[*Intercourse.*]

^The hiring thread was not an average thread. The purpose of this thread was to get the communities response on the applicants. To get honest responses from the community you have to have unbiased opinions. Biased opinions aren't the truth. They're closed minded; people competeting for the same postiion are going to have biased opinions of each other because they are in competition.

Sorry I'm one the phone with Josh.. hes washing dishes.

[*I Shot JFK*]

To get an honest response from the community, they have to get rid of their bias? That's a complete contradiction. That's how you get a neutral opinion. Not an honest one.

'Biased opinions aren't the truth'

Well, they aren't SUPPOSED to be some sort of indisputable truth. It's preception. Which is what is being saught. Y

[bat19]

If you can't see it, then why are you so sure that it's there? And why are you so sure that the mods can't see it.

Dude, I agree with you. Josh is always believing in invisible, crazy things like God and Jeezus and Santa, or Saintin, not sure. I believe in Casper, but that's my own problem that I'd rather not discuss. Biases are invisible. If we could see biases, it'd be easier for people to get jobs and get laid. I'm gonna train myself to see a bias. Kinda like monks who train themselves to see their auras.

.................hmm

It's been ten minutes and I've shaved my head. I am now wearing a blanket made of brown wool and I tied a sash around it. HUMMMM.....HUMMMM.....nope, still nothing. HUMMMM.....HUMMMM.....screw it. Im gonna go get drinkly.

...my head is cold...

[*Uronacid*]

To get an honest response from the community, they have to get rid of their bias? That's a complete contradiction. That's how you get a neutral opinion. Not an honest one.

'Biased opinions aren't the truth'

Well, they aren't SUPPOSED to be some sort of indisputable truth. It's preception. Which is what is being saught. Y

James, biased opinions aren't the truth about an individual. They are a perception. I was under the impression that staff was looking for the truth about the individuals they try to hire so that they could determine who would be the best applicant for the job. A neutral opinion is as close to the truth as you can get. Neutral opinions contain little or no bending of the truth due to favoritism or hatred.

[*I Shot JFK*]

A neutral perception isn't any closer to the truth, if the bias is aquired through perception of the facts.

[Kontroll]

A neutral perception isn't any closer to the truth, if the bias is aquired through perception of the facts.

Yeah, but most of the time it's not not aquired through the truth... that's the problem. People who like you will natrually say good things about you and forget about your flaws, and people who don't like you will natrually say bad things about you and forget about your good qualities. People in competition with you are bound to tear you down in efforts to win the competition.