Discourage Immaturity in Staff

[Samuel]

I asked about my post removal.

These "burns" may be cool when you're having a laugh, but they're not cool when you're trying to get answers to a question about a moderator action against your content.

I do not appreciate the staff team being "savages" when I want to know how else I should've approached the action I was doing that lead to the content being updated/removed by a moderator.

My suggestion: Discourage immaturity in staff - at least in situations like this, where it's important to clearly explain the rules and the ways to approach situations differently.

I finally got my answer from Coco here, however I was not happy that I had to continue to go on in chat about it.

There are multiple staff that are "savages". This is not aimed at Coco, this is just the most recent case I found.

 

[Gunny]

I'm with Coco and surprisingly Mick on this. You had no right to go and pester her, to make her look at your PM which isn't even the right way to handle it. Support Requests are there for a reason. Coco can be a very kind and generous person but when dealing with something annoying as you were... it would cause some problems. I mean what are you fighting about now? The fact that she declined because it was an improper way to get staff's attention? The fact that she just said no? Or you just being stubborn? I am NOT trying to get on your bad side but you are taking this way too far.

 

[omarhachach]

The thing is, this says almost nothing OTHER than the case of Coco. Nor would I class this as unprofessional except for the 'lul'. I have already talked with coco and she made clear that at no point was it intended to be 'savage' in any way, and (my input) that you chose to interpret it so is your own choice. I quote her here: "
I didn't consider anything I said as "savagery" anyway.
It was meant to be in a laid back sorta, I'm done with the day tone? I guess perception of texts vary from individual to individual"

I have to disagree:

There are multiple staff that are "savages". This is not aimed at Coco, this is just the most recent case I found.

My suggestion: Discourage immaturity in staff - at least in situations like this, where it's important to clearly explain the rules and the ways to approach situations differently.

He clearly says that he only uses the case of Coco to back up the suggestion. The harsh responses is what caused him to defend himself, the OP, which is what you should focus on, says that he wants professionalism in staff. He only uses Coco to back up his statement, whilst saying that he isn't attacking Coco.

That is why I don't get why you're getting so mad, if you want to argue, or discuss Samuels personality, it sure as heck isn't going to be here.
To clarify: I (and I got it that Samuel does as well) want staff members to be more professional. They should be able to be immature, but should be able to read the situation, and see when not to and when to be professional. He uses what happened between him and Coco to back up this, whilst saying he isn't attacking her.

The replies is what sparked this conversation, and you aren't doing anything better. Now please, if you want to argue with him, take it to a PM.

(Samuel can be a dick sure, but the suggestion is what I am looking at, not the suggester.)

 

[Ivain]

I have to disagree:



He clearly says that he only uses the case of Coco to back up the suggestion. The harsh responses is what caused him to defend himself, the OP, which is what you should focus on, says that he wants professionalism in staff. He only uses Coco to back up his statement, whilst saying that he isn't attacking Coco.

That is why I don't get why you're getting so mad, if you want to argue, or discuss Samuels personality, it sure as heck isn't going to be here.
To clarify: I (and I got it that Samuel does as well) want staff members to be more professional. They should be able to be immature, but should be able to read the situation, and see when not to and when to be professional. He uses what happened between him and Coco to back up this, whilst saying he isn't attacking her.

The replies is what sparked this conversation, and you aren't doing anything better. Now please, if you want to argue with him, take it to a PM.

(Samuel is a dick sure, but the suggestion is what I am looking at, not the suggester.)

Check the post again.

 

[Samuel]

so, i just got my hands on this: https://i.gyazo.com/b09f419bb8369fb11c1832c94778b668.png

Here it shows our buddy samuel harassing coco to reply to his PM. asking every minute is DEFINITELY contacting staff through SB, so I believe that should be dealt with.

It also does not show anywhere where she says that she will not reply to his PM at all.
The entire conversation shown happens inside of 15 minutes.
This strongly supports my earlier speculation of what happened.[DOUBLEPOST=1481991103][/DOUBLEPOST]Nor does it show any behavior I would class as unprofessional on Coco's side.

The only way he could have interpreted that she would not reply at all is by her "no thanks", which is justified after being asked 3 times in the space of a few minutes through shoutbox, which is against the rules.

Coco acted like I didn't have common sense by telling me there was a queue. I don't appreciate people treating me like I don't have common sense, so I gave them attitude back to just give them a taste of their own medicine.

I don't believe I was harassing Coco. The chat was moving fast and I wanted to make sure my message was heard.

Picture it like this:
Me: Mick blah blah blah?
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: Hi Mick!
Mick: Hi Person!
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Mick: bloop bloop
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Me: Coco, can you look at my messages to Mick (a few messages up?) --- I was quite respectful here, no?
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Me: Mick, Coco link --- Posted a link so they both knew what I wanted them to look at.
Coco: O, I removed your post lul Samuel
Me: what for?
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Me: PM me please --- I used "please". I was trying to be respectful and professional.
Person: jmwqerje
Coco: No thanks Samuel --- Attitude.
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Me: Coco, I PM'd you. --- Simple information.
Coco: I can see that. --- Attitude.
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Me: Coco, can you reply to my PM? --- I wasn't asking immediately. I was just asking if they could.
Person: jmwqerje
Coco: It's almost 2am. I'm not up for it rn Samuel. --- Fair enough.
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Samuel: Will you eventually, assuming you don't die? --- I wanted a simple "yes" or "no" to whether they would consider replying.
Coco: <explains things in chat, which I PM'd them for>
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Me: Coco, someone advertised handsniper.com in that post and it wasn't removed. --- Now questioning this bit, since it broke the same rule as me and wasn't removed.
Person: jmwqerje
Coco: It wasn't brought to our attention Samuel --- Fair enough.
Person: jmwqerje
Me: Coco, hopefully the report I made is enough to bring it to your (the team's) attention.
Person: jmwqerje
Coco: There's a queue. Samuel. --- Acting as if I don't have common sense.
Samuel: Coco, wow? Really? You don't say? --- I got fed up of their attitude.

Please note that the image is backwards. Convo starts at bottom.

 

[Justis]

To address the main suggestion you're making; I do feel maturity should be required from every staff member.
However, I don't think maintaining a professional figure in places it's not needed makes your behavior mature.
A mature person knows when to it is appropriate to joke around, to tease, who to be savage with, and where. They don't avoid it entirely.
Shoutbox is not supposed to be used to contact staff for staff related duties, it's the one place where a staff member can let down their professional guard and just chill with the community. Which a lot of people seem to appreciate, as apposed to a bunch of sticks in the mud.

However, this seems to be more like a complaint about Coco than anything.. (I know you said you're only using to back it up, but how people receive it matters most when communicating)

If you wanted a professional response, using the appropriate medium to contact the staff member you wished to talk to and waiting patiently for their response through that medium would have been the best way to get it.
Contacting her in shoutbox was not the best move; as it puts a serious matter in a non-serious place.
It can also be argued that despite that being a fact, if she had handled it in the most mature manner, she would have responded professionally anyways.

Either way, I think the situation would have been better handled peacefully between the two of you instead of everyone fighting it out in the suggestion forums.
Suggestions are not meant to handle individual complaints.
Not only that, but making the issues you two have a public issue allows for so many uninvolved parties to jump in and make things worse, strengthening each of your defenses instead of encouraging a mutual understanding between the two of you which would have been easier reached through patience and positive private communication.

tl;dr Yes to maturity, but no to professionalism everywhere. Your issue with Coco could have been handled better than by posting it in here.

 

[omarhachach]

And, as Omar has requested, my view on the suggestion without any situational case included: If you wish to force staff members to be 100% professional 100% of their time on this site, you will find that very few people still wish to be staff.

Sure, but he isn't wanting the staff to be 100% professional 100% of the time. Just that they be able to handle people professionally when needed to, even if the person is being a dick.
This is outlined in the OP:

at least in situations like this, where it's important to clearly explain the rules and the ways to approach situations differently.

 

[Ivain]

Let's write a final thing, shall we? This next bit is meant to be for samuel.
First off, I did go a bit too far, as omar pointed out. Whether it is because I've seen too much shit in my short tenure as staff, or because I've got too much shit IRL does not really matter, I went a bit too savage and interpreted the suggestion incorrectly (There IS reason for that, but no point arguing. My apologies for ranting.

However, I do think you're being overly sensitive. The things coco said were not in the least offensive, except for 3 letters. Mistakes happen. Even if staff were expected to be 100% professional, they will still happen. People are flapouts. I myself am a prime example of that.
I don't know what sort of serious unprofessionalism you have seen to warrant this suggetsion, but if it's all on this scale you're gonna have a hard time.
Even if mick DID decide that behavior was not acceptable, it was 1 tiny 3-letter slipup (the "no thanks" does not count as unprofessional, considering you spammed her in chat, which I'd like to repeat is against the rules). What sort of action do you suggest they take as a response to that? A reprimand? those happen, but they happen over Slack, which is where staff communicates and discusses. Some other action? A warning, like users get? Users don't get a warning for writing 'lul'. Users don't even get a warning for writing "fuck". This is because users are human, and we don't like to choke them to death with censoring.

Staff are also human. If they were given some sort of warning point for something this small, they'd stack them up faster than a user getting 50 points in 10 days total of being online.
Now, if you HAVE seen something more serious than this (no, I don't count, I've resigned ;p), feel free to report it (THROUGH SUPPORT REQUESTS!!!). It would just make me wonder why you did not choose to use THAT as your example, since it would have made your case far stronger and prevented the misunderstanding that you made this suggestion because of a case that just happened.

 

[Samuel]

To address the main suggestion you're making; I do feel maturity should be required from every staff member.
However, I don't think maintaining a professional figure in places it's not needed makes your behavior mature.
A mature person knows when to it is appropriate to joke around, to tease, who to be savage with, and where. They don't avoid it entirely.
Shoutbox is not supposed to be used to contact staff for staff related duties, it's the one place where a staff member can let down their professional guard and just chill with the community. Which a lot of people seem to appreciate, as apposed to a bunch of sticks in the mud.

However, this seems to be more like a complaint about Coco than anything.. (I know you said you're only using to back it up, but how people receive it matters most when communicating)

If you wanted a professional response, using the appropriate medium to contact the staff member you wished to talk to and waiting patiently for their response through that medium would have been the best way to get it.
Contacting her in shoutbox was not the best move; as it puts a serious matter in a non-serious place.
It can also be argued that despite that being a fact, if she had handled it in the most mature manner, she would have responded professionally anyways.

Either way, I think the situation would have been better handled peacefully between the two of you instead of everyone fighting it out in the suggestion forums.
Suggestions are not meant to handle individual complaints.
Not only that, but making the issues you two have a public issue allows for so many uninvolved parties to jump in and make things worse, strengthening each of your defenses instead of encouraging a mutual understanding between the two of you which would have been easier reached through patience and positive private communication.

tl;dr Yes to maturity, but no to professionalism everywhere. Your issue with Coco could have been handled better than by posting it in here.

This is definitely not a complaint about Coco. I've seen multiple staff members do this, but I haven't kept record of any of them because it took me a while to notice this was common. Coco is a great moderator, but this is one example of a situation that should be improved.

You're right, I contacted staff in a way that isn't meant to be done, however I tried moving to the better solution and essentially got denied ("No thanks."), so I had to do it myself and then get "I can see that." (or whatever it was, not looking up right now). Staff should be able to switch to "professional mode" even if contacted in the wrong place. They should inform the user that they are not contacting the staff member in the right manner, and point them to the correct way to do so.

Don't get me wrong here - I don't mind staff being savages when everyone is having a laugh (joking, for the non-brits), however when I contacted this staff member in particular, I don't feel that it was dealt with correctly and closely resembles how many other staff members have talked about this type of stuff with other members in the past.

I want to repeat myself. I am not in any way targeting Coco here. Coco is a great staff member that messed up (like Ivain said, we're [mostly] all humans here [beep boop, robot]). The example with Coco is the only example I had screenshots of.[DOUBLEPOST=1481992781][/DOUBLEPOST]

Let's write a final thing, shall we? This next bit is meant to be for samuel.
First off, I did go a bit too far, as omar pointed out. Whether it is because I've seen too much shit in my short tenure as staff, or because I've got too much shit IRL does not really matter, I went a bit too savage and interpreted the suggestion incorrectly (There IS reason for that, but no point arguing. My apologies for ranting.

However, I do think you're being overly sensitive. The things coco said were not in the least offensive, except for 3 letters. Mistakes happen. Even if staff were expected to be 100% professional, they will still happen. People are flapouts. I myself am a prime example of that.
I don't know what sort of serious unprofessionalism you have seen to warrant this suggetsion, but if it's all on this scale you're gonna have a hard time.
Even if mick DID decide that behavior was not acceptable, it was 1 tiny 3-letter slipup (the "no thanks" does not count as unprofessional, considering you spammed her in chat, which I'd like to repeat is against the rules). What sort of action do you suggest they take as a response to that? A reprimand? those happen, but they happen over Slack, which is where staff communicates and discusses. Some other action? A warning, like users get? Users don't get a warning for writing 'lul'. Users don't even get a warning for writing "fuck". This is because users are human, and we don't like to choke them to death with censoring.

Staff are also human. If they were given some sort of warning point for something this small, they'd stack them up faster than a user getting 50 points in 10 days total of being online.
Now, if you HAVE seen something more serious than this (no, I don't count, I've resigned ;p), feel free to report it (THROUGH SUPPORT REQUESTS!!!). It would just make me wonder why you did not choose to use THAT as your example, since it would have made your case far stronger and prevented the misunderstanding that you made this suggestion because of a case that just happened.

Apology accepted.

I don't think I spammed Coco based on how quickly the chat was moving.

Coco acted like I didn't have common sense by telling me there was a queue. I don't appreciate people treating me like I don't have common sense, so I gave them attitude back to just give them a taste of their own medicine.

I don't believe I was harassing Coco. The chat was moving fast and I wanted to make sure my message was heard.

Picture it like this:
Me: Mick blah blah blah?
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: Hi Mick!
Mick: Hi Person!
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Mick: bloop bloop
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Me: Coco, can you look at my messages to Mick (a few messages up?) --- I was quite respectful here, no?
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Me: Mick, Coco link --- Posted a link so they both knew what I wanted them to look at.
Coco: O, I removed your post lul Samuel
Me: what for?
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Me: PM me please --- I used "please". I was trying to be respectful and professional.
Person: jmwqerje
Coco: No thanks Samuel --- Attitude.
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Me: Coco, I PM'd you. --- Simple information.
Coco: I can see that. --- Attitude.
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Me: Coco, can you reply to my PM? --- I wasn't asking immediately. I was just asking if they could.
Person: jmwqerje
Coco: It's almost 2am. I'm not up for it rn Samuel. --- Fair enough.
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Samuel: Will you eventually, assuming you don't die? --- I wanted a simple "yes" or "no" to whether they would consider replying.
Coco: <explains things in chat, which I PM'd them for>
Person: jmwqerje
Person: wre,m[pl;wre
Person: wer;wre[,l;wer
Person: wer
Person: wer;'/prl.we;rwer
Me: Coco, someone advertised handsniper.com in that post and it wasn't removed. --- Now questioning this bit, since it broke the same rule as me and wasn't removed.
Person: jmwqerje
Coco: It wasn't brought to our attention Samuel --- Fair enough.
Person: jmwqerje
Me: Coco, hopefully the report I made is enough to bring it to your (the team's) attention.
Person: jmwqerje
Coco: There's a queue. Samuel. --- Acting as if I don't have common sense.
Samuel: Coco, wow? Really? You don't say? --- I got fed up of their attitude.

Please note that the image is backwards. Convo starts at bottom.

Also this:

This is definitely not a complaint about Coco. I've seen multiple staff members do this, but I haven't kept record of any of them because it took me a while to notice this was common. Coco is a great moderator, but this is one example of a situation that should be improved.

You're right, I contacted staff in a way that isn't meant to be done, however I tried moving to the better solution and essentially got denied ("No thanks."), so I had to do it myself and then get "I can see that." (or whatever it was, not looking up right now). Staff should be able to switch to "professional mode" even if contacted in the wrong place. They should inform the user that they are not contacting the staff member in the right manner, and point them to the correct way to do so.

Don't get me wrong here - I don't mind staff being savages when everyone is having a laugh (joking, for the non-brits), however when I contacted this staff member in particular, I don't feel that it was dealt with correctly and closely resembles how many other staff members have talked about this type of stuff with other members in the past.

I want to repeat myself. I am not in any way targeting Coco here. Coco is a great staff member that messed up (like Ivain said, we're [mostly] all humans here [beep boop, robot]). The example with Coco is the only example I had screenshots of.

 

[Ivain]

Sure, but he isn't wanting the staff to be 100% professional 100% of the time. Just that they be able to handle people professionally when needed to, even if the person is being a dick.
This is outlined in the OP:

Check justis's post.
Also, it is not outlined in the OP. It is mentioned, and he then uses an example where he contacts a staff-member in a non-serious environment. An environment where staff are NOT required to be professional.
I guarantee you that behaviour like that in a support request would cause a serious talk with other staff members/owner. I did something like that once. Never again.

All in all, this suggestion is mostly moot. All that it suggests is already being implemented. The only REAL discussion is over where staff should be required to be professional. The rule against contacting staff through SB sHould make it clear that SB is NOT a place where they are required to do so.
But hey, since this is not clearly stated, I believe I have made a Suggestion to do that, and to otherwise clarify what is expected of staff and what is not. If that is implemented it should prevent things like this occurring again.

 

[Mick]

Look, at this point I think it's safe to say that this suggestion has been scaled way out of proportion to what it really means. If there's only one example of something like this happening (and to the best of my knowledge there is) then the correct course of action would be to -- ironically enough -- make a support request about the way that a member of staff has acted towards you. I'm sure that as a staff team we're pretty good at telling when to be serious and when not to be but of course the occasional slip-up can occur.

If you feel that you were disrespected by a member of the staff then I apologise and can assure you that this has been noted. I still disagree with the premise that staff must be professional in the shoutbox so this has been denied. Thanks for your input here though Samuel.