Discontinue Staff Interviews - Denied

[[GL] Fizz-y Soda]

What are you suggesting? - Discontinuation of staff interviews.

There have been many cases where questionable members of the community have been given staff titles. All of which obtained staff from interviews. Lately, staff have been in the spot light, and not in a good way. So we need to crack down who gets staff and how. I've seen many people say, "I wanna be staff but don't wanna make an application. So I'll just wait for interviews." 

People are being conditioned to make less effort to be staff because it's easier to get accepted when you go to interviews and this is why it always ends up bad. People with no experience or rep will nail the interview, only to get removed and restricted days later. It's harder to get accepted through the application process because your credentials are in plain sight. People can look into your profile and see how active you are, and punishment history. You have to also gain community support. I'm not saying the HOS or HA have been making bad decisions, but have had incorrect judgments of people because they were given what they wanted to hear.

For those that would use the argument, "Well, not enough people are applying so interviews are a faster way of getting staff." Yes, but have you thought they don't apply BECAUSE it's easier during interviews? If they know they will get denied because they're too new, they'll just go to an interview. Then boom, staff report, or loads of warn appeals for incorrect warns.

If people cannot get staff the easy way, their only choice is to make the effort to apply. If they really want it, they'll do it. If they refuse to make the effort, then clearly they should not be staff because then how would they be trusted to make the sit quota. 

How would this change better the server? - More competent staff members being added with community support.

Are there any disadvantages of making this change to the server? If so, explain. - Less waves of Trial mods

Who would this change mostly benefit? - Everyone 

Please link any workshop content, screenshots, or anything that you think may be helpful to those who view this suggestion - N/A

Edited July 29, 2021 by [GL] Fizz-y Soda
Can't spell for shit

[Jummy]

+Support

I don't think this is ENTIRELY the best idea, but the interviews could use a rework.

Not gonna deny that I got into staff from an interview, though.

[Some Weeb]

+support 

Not only is the interview just easier to get accepted in but it only takes like 1 hour where has applying on the forum takes like a week or 2 for some people so people think its easier from that stance too 

 

Staff Application on the forums  --------------------->   Interview with SMT  --------------------------------> Accepting the player into the staff team

                 ^                                                                                     ^                                                                                ^

 Community Opinion                                     Senior Management Teams Opinion                                     All opinions together 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Some minge

[Jack (utility one)]

+support
I've always been a person why liked to apply for something to where the community can give feedback, it makes it so where people can say their concerns, if any, and I can better myself off those responses. I think making people do that is a way to constructively criticize those who need it, in a way that doesn't directly offend them (hopefully). As well I have been told that the interviews are easy as pie and there has definitely been some questionable staff accepted due to this process (this isn't recent, this has always been an issue). 
But some times people prefer the interviews as their shy of making a post and feeling that they can receive a 'community backlash' in the responses. I see the benefit and downside to both but think more of a community vote, even tho it's not up to us, on who is staff would be much better than a 1 on 1 or however many people are there.

[Beepis]

+support on reworking interviews

an interviewee can become staff in less than 2 hours where as applying for one takes 2 weeks or so. Possibly giving like a day or so, so the admins can think about who should/shouldnt get staff

-Support on disabling them entirely

[Nydekore]

+Support on a rework and I might have an idea how they could be properly transformed.

I think the way this could be performed is by having everyone go through application AND interview.

This would provide time for the community to give their opinions on someone wishing to be staff and time for SMT to personally meet their staff-member-to-be's.

Applicants would first have to be approved on the forums for an interview and then staff interviews could either be hosted on Rookieblue's scheduling or they could be bi-weekly or something like that. 

Of course, not everyone is perfect at applications, however in this system the application would show the amount of work they're willing to put in and the response from the community regarding the applicants behavior.

[Yato Sensei]

+ Support
I honestly think the interview should be made AFTER the Staff Application is accepted. Yes it complicates the process but it can assure that the community is fine with the person given power AND SMT can see how good they really are personally.

[Demon Dice]

18 hours ago, Jummy said:

+Support

I don't think this is ENTIRELY the best idea, but the interviews could use a rework.

Not gonna deny that I got into staff from an interview, though.

 

[Guinea Pig]

14 hours ago, Yato Sensei said:

+ Support
I honestly think the interview should be made AFTER the Staff Application is accepted. Yes it complicates the process but it can assure that the community is fine with the person given power AND SMT can see how good they really are personally.

The amount of people that have gotten into staff via this is crazy 

[Dick Grayson]

20 hours ago, Jummy said:

+Support

I don't think this is ENTIRELY the best idea, but the interviews could use a rework.

Not gonna deny that I got into staff from an interview, though.

 

[Ya Boi Sawrunner]

Interviews shouldn't be gotten rid of entirely, but the screening process should be far more strict for it. They still have their place I think, but we need to be more sure with what we are getting.

+Support in any case. 

[ripjaw56789]

+/-

A few bad apples get in through applications as well, its just seen more with the interviews, however some amazing staff have gotten in through interviews (Including a guy who made it to JMT via these, resigned a long time ago, and was JMT on a diff GL server), I am all for making it a bit harder to get in through Interviews but not discontinuing them

[The Gaming Goat]

On 7/29/2021 at 1:28 PM, Jummy said:

+Support

I don't think this is ENTIRELY the best idea, but the interviews could use a rework.

Not gonna deny that I got into staff from an interview, though.

Yea rework/remove them I mean people like me got staff through interviews, we dont want that to happen.

[Sprink]

19 hours ago, Ya Boi Sawrunner said:

Interviews shouldn't be gotten rid of entirely, but the screening process should be far more strict for it. They still have their place I think, but we need to be more sure with what we are getting.

+Support in any case. 

 

[Rookieblue]

You know we literally ask the same questions in the interview that are on the staff applications, right? The only difference between interviews and applications is that one is verbal and the lack of community feedback. The feedback issue is offset by having veteran staff members also attend the interviews who provide feedback on the individual if they're familiar with them based on their experience with them in RP or staff based settings.

[[GL] Fizz-y Soda]

6 hours ago, Rookieblue said:

You know we literally ask the same questions in the interview that are on the staff applications, right? The only difference between interviews and applications is that one is verbal and the lack of community feedback. 

Exactly my point. Also is word count applied towards those verbal answers? 

6 hours ago, Rookieblue said:

 The feedback issue is offset by having veteran staff members also attend the interviews who provide feedback on the individual if they're familiar with them based on their experience with them in RP or staff based settings.

But if you're going to rely on player feedback, why not just lean towards forum based applications instead of relying on vet players to also attend the interviews. They won't always attend. If you focus on forum applications, then you have a greater sample size of the WHOLE community for feedback, not just 5-10 veteran players. (Not actual count, just example.)

If the effort and time is moved from scheduling TS interviews, to reviewing current applications on the forums, then applications will be more of a success. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by [GL] Fizz-y Soda

[Some Weeb]

6 hours ago, Rookieblue said:

You know we literally ask the same questions in the interview that are on the staff applications, right? The only difference between interviews and applications is that one is verbal and the lack of community feedback. The feedback issue is offset by having veteran staff members also attend the interviews who provide feedback on the individual if they're familiar with them based on their experience with them in RP or staff based settings.

I dont disagree with you but if you look at it from our point of view 

there is a 100% higher chance of someone like me or regular member seeing a player and their conduct rather than a few senior staff members. Therefore it is better when the applications are made available to the community so that way anyone that has interacted with said player may speak on their interactions. 

I am going to stick with a +support 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Some minge

[Nydekore]

8 hours ago, Rookieblue said:

You know we literally ask the same questions in the interview that are on the staff applications, right? The only difference between interviews and applications is that one is verbal and the lack of community feedback. The feedback issue is offset by having veteran staff members also attend the interviews who provide feedback on the individual if they're familiar with them based on their experience with them in RP or staff based settings.

There's no way that such a small group of staff know everyone that come into those interviews unfortunately. I don't think you guys have bad judgement, but there's simply no way of telling if they're lying to you. That's why I think an application looked at by the community first could work better.

[Loki Himself]

On 7/31/2021 at 4:26 PM, The Gaming Goat said:

Yea rework/remove them I mean people like me got staff through interviews, we dont want that to happen.

 

[Blazzy]

On 7/29/2021 at 1:28 PM, Jummy said:

+Support

I don't think this is ENTIRELY the best idea, but the interviews could use a rework.

Not gonna deny that I got into staff from an interview, though.

 

[Piller]

16 hours ago, Some minge said:

I dont disagree with you but if you look at it from our point of view 

there is a 100% higher chance of someone like me or regular member seeing a player and their conduct rather than a few senior staff members. Therefore it is better when the applications are made available to the community so that way anyone that has interacted with said player may speak on their interactions. 

I am going to stick with a +support 

Gonna have to agree with Some Minge on this. It's a very valid point.

[a frog]

On 7/29/2021 at 12:28 PM, Jummy said:

+Support

I don't think this is ENTIRELY the best idea, but the interviews could use a rework.

Not gonna deny that I got into staff from an interview, though.

 

23 hours ago, Pillercat said:

Gonna have to agree with Some Minge on this. It's a very valid point.

 

staff interviews be like 
 

[Kvist]

+/-SUPPORT

The biggest positive I can see for this suggestion is the perceived community input that goes into the staff selection process when it's done via the forums. I say perceived because if the higher-ups don't want somebody as staff, they sure as hell won't choose them, regardless of all the support in the world. Either way, I can definitely see why the community would be happier with saying their piece to staff team hopefuls.

On the other hand, we're cherry picking. I guarantee there have been awful staff members who have applied via the forum and competent staff who applied via the interview process, it's just that the awful ones stand out more. Plus, while I'm all for the community having a say in many matters, staff team selection is one of those things that may just be better left to management. I like the current balance where interviews seem to be only open sometimes.

[[GL] Fryingpan36]

On 8/1/2021 at 11:42 AM, Rookieblue said:

You know we literally ask the same questions in the interview that are on the staff applications, right? The only difference between interviews and applications is that one is verbal and the lack of community feedback. The feedback issue is offset by having veteran staff members also attend the interviews who provide feedback on the individual if they're familiar with them based on their experience with them in RP or staff based settings.

He's right it also give SMT and JMT a opportunity to talk to the staff members before accepting it
-Support

Edited August 5, 2021 by [GL] Fryingpan36

[Igneous]

On 8/1/2021 at 2:42 PM, Rookieblue said:

You know we literally ask the same questions in the interview that are on the staff applications, right? The only difference between interviews and applications is that one is verbal and the lack of community feedback. The feedback issue is offset by having veteran staff members also attend the interviews who provide feedback on the individual if they're familiar with them based on their experience with them in RP or staff based settings.