Staff overhaul

[SSH]

Face it.
The staffteam right now aren't doing an amazing job. I've need staff on large platforms and I can understand the stress that comes with it.
EDIT: need > been
My suggestion is that we overhaul all the staff all the way up to justis (not including justis) because new staff are learning from the old bad staff ways and becoming said bad staff

If we get a fully new staffteam with people actually in the community and Justis/Mick train them well, we will have a good staffteam.

I know this may be unpopular with the current staff but honestly, the community needs it as we're growing faster than ever.
EDIT: The community is also changing rapidly and what is acceptable and what isn't, is also changing.

The community needs to understand that the staff usually aren't doing what they're doing out of malice (usually), it's just their job. Staff just need to be more transparent about it.

Oh, also. Staff will need to be more open about how they come to their decisions and Mick/Justis need to tighten what staff can warn for.

Thank you for your time in reading this. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

 

[Maddy]

bru

I've had tickets that are so obviously being ignored. I don't respond to them as I know that it gets bumped further down.[DOUBLEPOST=1593811891][/DOUBLEPOST]At this point, you're just straight-up lying just to defend your staff members.

bruh just wait. i have a ticket with latest reply from 9 months ago, there'll be more active members with the new staff applications, whether you like those people or not, they will be the most active staff on the forum

 

[User]

Face it.
The staffteam right now aren't doing an amazing job. I've need staff on large platforms and I can understand the stress that comes with it.

True, I imagine the stress could be quite high. I also agree that the site's moderation has been suboptimal, not that it's been especially great at any point since I've joined (or really, even before I joined from what I've seen).

My suggestion is that we overhaul all the staff all the way up to justis (not including justis) because new staff are learning from the old bad staff ways and becoming said bad staff

As long as the staff are doing their job, even if they aren't perfect at it, I don't see the need for an overhaul. If you could elaborate on what you mean by "old bad staff ways", that might be helpful.

If we get a fully new staffteam with people actually in the community and Justis/Mick train them well, we will have a good staffteam.

What community are you talking about? Plenty of recent staff members have been part of the community. MCCharity was one of the most well-known members of the resource community, Annqii was a respected and popular writer, Majored is a respected dev, and to say that others like Red, Geek, or Banned aren't part of the community is just ignorant. When people usually bring this up, they tend to be using "the community" to refer to one specific part of the site, which is the account selling community. I agree that it's understaffed and some representation from account sellers would be very much appreciated, but can you really blame them? The sections are possibly the most toxic on the site, and I'd imagine they have a much larger rate of ban evasion, scamming, TOS violations [very specific, I know], etc. Again, an account selling staff member or two would be very nice, but it makes sense that there hasn't been many.

I know this may be unpopular with the current staff but honestly, the community needs it as we're growing faster than ever.
EDIT: The community is also changing rapidly and what is acceptable and what isn't, is also changing.

No, we aren't. For example, we've had roughly 4,000 discussions made in the past month. Dividing the total discussion count (604,000) by the amount of months the site has existed (about 71), we can see that the average is 8500 discussions per month. This last month has had less than half of that activity. Now, obviously discussion count is not the only way, or the most accurate way, to measure site activity; but I've personally noticed a decline in activity in the past year or so, and I imagine many others have as well. As for the community changing rapidly... In what way? I see new users coming in, but they're doing the same things as before for the most part, nothing especially stands out to me. Please do elaborate.

The community needs to understand that the staff usually aren't doing what they're doing out of malice (usually), it's just their job. Staff just need to be more transparent about it.

Oh, also. Staff will need to be more open about how they come to their decisions and Mick/Justis need to tighten what staff can warn for.

Absolutely, more transparency on the staff team has always seemed like a necessity throughout my entire time on the platform, and I imagine it extends to before that as well. I don't think that warnings need to be more specific necessarily, but I do think they should be applied equally. I've seen many cases where one member will say something relatively tame, getting a warning for it, while another will repeat it or say something worse, and due to a different staff member spectating, the comment will pass.

By the way, staff applications have just reopened, and to a larger section of the community than ever before. Hopefully, we'll be seeing a lot more new staff members coming in, potentially including those "in the community", as you say.

Also, please don't take this as me sucking up to the staff. I have my issues with numerous staff members, present and past, and how they handle themselves and their connections both on and offsite. I just think that people tend to pay attention to smaller issues, and miss the big picture.

 

[SSH]

bru

bruh just wait. i have a ticket with latest reply from 9 months ago, there'll be more active members with the new staff applications, whether you like those people or not, they will be the most active staff on the forum

Then they learn from the older staff and turn into the bad staff.

 

[Lotus]

Then they learn from the older staff and turn into the bad staff.

Throughout this whole discussion, you haven’t pointed out exactly what is “bad”.

Is it the rules and how they are enforced?
That’s a policy matter, meaning getting rid of the ‘older’ staff members won’t change anything for newer staff. They’d follow the same procedures according to our guidelines and previous cases.

Make a suggestion to change specific policies. Everyone’s views are then pooled and considered before we make a change according to community feedback.

Is it wait times? Lack of professionalism? Has someone abused their position?
Our performance is always kept track of and we’re always peer reviewed internally by others. If we’re underperforming or we created a problem, we’re told about that.
Even after all that, you are completely free to report a ‘bad’ staff member for whatever misdeeds they have done. It is practically impossible for any of us to ‘hide’ the evidence since everything is logged, so go wild and report us!

The staff team wants to improve and learn from our mistakes. We’re not your enemies. Else why would we put in so many hours into the community for not so much in return? If you have constructive feedback or an abuse report for a specific staff member, you are well within your rights to create a ticket to get that looked over.

TLDR; Suggestion is too vague to act upon.

Make policy specific suggestions that change how staff handle moderation.

Make constructive tickets that highlight our weaknesses so we can learn from them.

 

[bt2S5NpQVjX9yGNKJ]

Throughout this whole discussion, you haven’t pointed out exactly what is “bad”.

Is it the rules and how they are enforced?
That’s a policy matter, meaning getting rid of the ‘older’ staff members won’t change anything for newer staff. They’d follow the same procedures according to our guidelines and previous cases.

Make a suggestion to change specific policies. Everyone’s views are then pooled and considered before we make a change according to community feedback.

Is it wait times? Lack of professionalism? Has someone abused their position?
Our performance is always kept track of and we’re always peer reviewed internally by others. If we’re underperforming or we created a problem, we’re told about that.
Even after all that, you are completely free to report a ‘bad’ staff member for whatever misdeeds they have done. It is practically impossible for any of us to ‘hide’ the evidence since everything is logged, so go wild and report us!

The staff team wants to improve and learn from our mistakes. We’re not your enemies. Else why would we put in so many hours into the community for not so much in return? If you have constructive feedback or an abuse report for a specific staff member, you are well within your rights to create a ticket to get that looked over.

TLDR; Suggestion is too vague to act upon.

Make policy specific suggestions that change how staff handle moderation.

Make constructive tickets that highlight our weaknesses so we can learn from them.

I think a great example would be staff members mass-deleting posts which are negative to a topic on behalf of a specific user without warning points given. Would you agree?

 

[Lotus]

I think a great example would be staff members mass-deleting posts which are negative to a topic on behalf of a specific user without warning points given. Would you agree?

I’m not sure of the context behind that. Anyone can request us to ‘prune’ their thread, which essentially is removing all non-relevant discussion on their product/service thread only leaving vouches/de-vouches. That doesn’t incur any points.

Is that what you are talking about? What rule are you talking about that would get you issued warning points?

 

[bt2S5NpQVjX9yGNKJ]

I’m not sure of the context behind that. Anyone can request us to ‘prune’ their thread, which essentially is removing all non-relevant discussion on their product/service thread only leaving vouches/de-vouches. That doesn’t incur any points.

Is that what you are talking about? What rule are you talking about that would get you issued warning points?

I'm referencing a situation which included removing only de-vouches that were completely relavent to the thread and editing posts to make it look like there was no proof.

 

[Lotus]

I'm referencing a situation which included removing only de-vouches that were completely relavent to the thread and editing posts to make it look like there was no proof.

The only reason why de-vouches may be removed from a thread is when there is no evidence backing it, or it had been proven incorrect - alongside all the excessive argument that tends to follow with that. If the negative review is completely valid and accurately informs other buyers about a specific problem, it should not be removed.

As for editing posts... I can only imagine that happening when part of the post is valid whilst the rest isn't and the staff member strongly believes the valid part should remain. It's pretty unorthodox to edit posts and I don't believe internally we've ever encountered too many situations like that.

If something does feel amiss in a thread, feel free to create a ticket about that. 99.9% of the time, it really is just a mistake or an overlooked thing on our end when something is done wrong.

 

[bt2S5NpQVjX9yGNKJ]

The only reason why de-vouches may be removed from a thread is when there is no evidence backing it, or it had been proven incorrect - alongside all the excessive argument that tends to follow with that. If the negative review is completely valid and accurately informs other buyers about a specific problem, it should not be removed.

As for editing posts... I can only imagine that happening when part of the post is valid whilst the rest isn't and the staff member strongly believes the valid part should remain. It's pretty unorthodox to edit posts and I don't believe internally we've ever encountered too many situations like that.

If something does feel amiss in a thread, feel free to create a ticket about that. 99.9% of the time, it really is just a mistake or an overlooked thing on our end when something is done wrong.

What's the point in making a ticket lol... it'll sit there unanswered for months if I'm lucky.

Then who else am I going to raise it to? Kram? Jutis? They're all suspected of activities as well so why should I trust them?

Even Mick won't come out against this topic... I have had about 4 conversations in total with him about this topic and he just doesn't seem to be willing to have a proper conversation off this site where I can be silenced.

 

[SSH]

Make policy specific suggestions that change how staff handle moderation.

Then, you say that it isn't a problem or that it isn't the correct solution. The reason I made this vague is just so that it could be talked about and to avoid nit-picking.[DOUBLEPOST=1593902281][/DOUBLEPOST]

Is it wait times? Lack of professionalism? Has someone abused their position?
Our performance is always kept track of and we’re always peer reviewed internally by others. If we’re underperforming or we created a problem, we’re told about that.
Even after all that, you are completely free to report a ‘bad’ staff member for whatever misdeeds they have done. It is practically impossible for any of us to ‘hide’ the evidence since everything is logged, so go wild and report us!

What's the point in making a ticket lol... it'll sit there unanswered for months if I'm lucky.

Then who else am I going to raise it to? Kram? Jutis? They're all suspected of activities as well so why should I trust them?

Even Mick won't come out against this topic... I have had about 4 conversations in total with him about this topic and he just doesn't seem to be willing to have a proper conversation off this site where I can be silenced.

Exactly. If a scam resolver scams, do you let them handle the scam report? No, of course not. Mick, Justis, and Kram always try to just defend their staff while lying and making up bullshit. They don't actively listen to suggestions about the staff team and just assume that they're just angry about a warning and ignore it. They never listen to those staff reports as all they want to do is defend them. Mick, Justis, and Kram are great staff members and community members but they defend the bad staff unless they've done something like scamming or something majorly public.

 

[Justis]

Then who else am I going to raise it to? Kram? Jutis? They're all suspected of activities as well so why should I trust them?

Pardon, what activities am I suspected of?

Then, you say that it isn't a problem or that it isn't the correct solution. The reason I made this vague is just so that it could be talked about and to avoid nit-picking.[DOUBLEPOST=1593902281][/DOUBLEPOST]

Exactly. If a scam resolver scams, do you let them handle the scam report? No, of course not. Mick, Justis, and Kram always try to just defend their staff while lying and making up bullshit. They don't actively listen to suggestions about the staff team and just assume that they're just angry about a warning and ignore it. They never listen to those staff reports as all they want to do is defend them. Mick, Justis, and Kram are great staff members and community members but they defend the bad staff unless they've done something like scamming or something majorly public.

I’m sure any member of the staff team can attest that I’m not very agreeable. If I take issue with one of my teammates or something they have said/done, I’ll be the first to express that to them. I know Mick and Kram to be very similar in that sense, and so everyone on the team knows that their management won’t tolerate them for a moment if they dare try to misuse the authority they’ve been trusted with. However, if we thought for a second that any member of our team would even feel compelled to do so, they wouldn’t be with us in the first place.

That said, mistakes do happen. Everyone reading this thread knows this, as fellow humans that have also experienced the embarrassment of tripping up at points. That’s why we have processes in place to handle appeals or reports that correctly follow when a mistake has happened. Mistakes aren’t tantamount to abuse though. What exactly are you claiming is "protecting" them in these scenarios? If you’re expecting us to publicly shame every staff member who has made a mistake, I’m afraid I can never agree to that. It’s emotionally abusive, and I don't believe it would be productive or helpful to our community. Who would want to be a staff member for us when they’re under so much pressure for the entirety of their term here and made to be humiliated when their anxieties turn to reality? We’ve already had staff members leave because it was too much long term stress.

If a mistake happens, the mistake will be corrected and the discussion of the mistake will take place privately with the staff member in question, or at most, within the presence of the rest of the team. If a staff member has proven themselves incapable of meeting our expectations, they will be relieved of their position, just as other past members have been. When the mistake has unreasonably caused trouble to our members, those involved will be apologized to; as is only appropriate.

If you’re looking for us to replace the entire staff team with perfect individuals who won’t make mistakes, we will never be able to fill our positions. I think we have a fantastic team right now. Far better than it was a few years ago, and certainly far better than what we’d be able to replace it with if we were forced to start from scratch. That’s because I believe each member of our current team cares deeply for the community they serve, and they do a very good job at providing the time that they have to that community in a productive and professional manner.

You’ve mentioned that your thread was meant to start discussion about a widely known issue. There are definitely issues, and we’re always working to improve our policies and moderation tools and resources to ensure that the mistakes that occur will occur less and less frequently. I believe our long term members will be able to attest that those long term efforts have steadily been bearing fruit. Replacing the entire staff team isn’t a viable suggestion though. In fact, it would very much put us in dire straits.

Here's the thing though. Everyone provides exact examples and stuff and it always gets battled by white knights defending the staff like you and even they staff themselves.

I'm not going to propose an exact plan for this because y'all will nitpick it. I'm proposing an idea to a widely known issue, I'm pinpointing the issue and not just saying "red name bad". People like Geek, perfect users and great for staff, they get ruined by the older staff. For example, Geek sees another staff member ignoring a ticket and asks why, older staff member says that it can wait because it'll take a while. Then Geek does the same thing and learns that ignoring tickets is ok if the ticket requires work. (No offense to Geek, he's an amazing staff member as of now.)[DOUBLEPOST=1593808117][/DOUBLEPOST]It seems like all y'all are seeing in my post is "red name bad" and not how I'm explaining the current issue.

Without specifying the exact issues, it’s no more productive than saying "red name bad".
You gave one example: Ignoring tickets. That’s a problem of activity from a particular staff member. Everyone gets periods like that. Myself included. More often than not, those periods end. When they don’t, the staff member that cannot perform either resigns or is relieved of their position. This is one of the most common demotion/resignation reasons. It is neither because a staff member doesn’t recognize the importance of responding, nor because they’re ignoring someone.

If you have a suggestion for how we can mitigate the impact on our community when a staff member’s time availability temporarily drops, then that would definitely be a productive discussion to have. Or if there are other problems that can be addressed, those would be helpful to bring up. It’s not nitpicking to try and figure out the best solution to a specific problem. It’s the logical progression after having identified one.

Solutions cannot be achieved until the problems have been identified, so if there are more on your mind, please don’t withhold your thoughts. The entire community that we’re both looking to protect is here as your witness. Express your specific misgivings and we can all discuss them.

 

[Satan]

The reason I made this vague is just so that it could be talked about and to avoid nit-picking.

Something about this catches my eye oh wait here it is

avoid nit-picking.

What has you wanting to avoid being nit-picked? If we are to have this staff overhaul

be talked about

We need to have points... specific points to talk about

 

[SSH]

Welp. Guess I can't ever suggest anything ever as anytime I make a suggestion, I get reamed by literally everyone. Have a good day all.

 

[Mick]

Pardon, what activities am I suspected of?


I’m sure any member of the staff team can attest that I’m not very agreeable. If I take issue with one of my teammates or something they have said/done, I’ll be the first to express that to them. I know Mick and Kram to be very similar in that sense, and so everyone on the team knows that their management won’t tolerate them for a moment if they dare try to misuse the authority they’ve been trusted with. However, if we thought for a second that any member of our team would even feel compelled to do so, they wouldn’t be with us in the first place.

That said, mistakes do happen. Everyone reading this thread knows this, as fellow humans that have also experienced the embarrassment of tripping up at points. That’s why we have processes in place to handle appeals or reports that correctly follow when a mistake has happened. Mistakes aren’t tantamount to abuse though. What exactly are you claiming is "protecting" them in these scenarios? If you’re expecting us to publicly shame every staff member who has made a mistake, I’m afraid I can never agree to that. It’s emotionally abusive, and I don't believe it would be productive or helpful to our community. Who would want to be a staff member for us when they’re under so much pressure for the entirety of their term here and made to be humiliated when their anxieties turn to reality? We’ve already had staff members leave because it was too much long term stress.

If a mistake happens, the mistake will be corrected and the discussion of the mistake will take place privately with the staff member in question, or at most, within the presence of the rest of the team. If a staff member has proven themselves incapable of meeting our expectations, they will be relieved of their position, just as other past members have been. When the mistake has unreasonably caused trouble to our members, those involved will be apologized to; as is only appropriate.

If you’re looking for us to replace the entire staff team with perfect individuals who won’t make mistakes, we will never be able to fill our positions. I think we have a fantastic team right now. Far better than it was a few years ago, and certainly far better than what we’d be able to replace it with if we were forced to start from scratch. That’s because I believe each member of our current team cares deeply for the community they serve, and they do a very good job at providing the time that they have to that community in a productive and professional manner.

You’ve mentioned that your thread was meant to start discussion about a widely known issue. There are definitely issues, and we’re always working to improve our policies and moderation tools and resources to ensure that the mistakes that occur will occur less and less frequently. I believe our long term members will be able to attest that those long term efforts have steadily been bearing fruit. Replacing the entire staff team isn’t a viable suggestion though. In fact, it would very much put us in dire straits.



Without specifying the exact issues, it’s no more productive than saying "red name bad".
You gave one example: Ignoring tickets. That’s a problem of activity from a particular staff member. Everyone gets periods like that. Myself included. More often than not, those periods end. When they don’t, the staff member that cannot perform either resigns or is relieved of their position. This is one of the most common demotion/resignation reasons. It is neither because a staff member doesn’t recognize the importance of responding, nor because they’re ignoring someone.

If you have a suggestion for how we can mitigate the impact on our community when a staff member’s time availability temporarily drops, then that would definitely be a productive discussion to have. Or if there are other problems that can be addressed, those would be helpful to bring up. It’s not nitpicking to try and figure out the best solution to a specific problem. It’s the logical progression after having identified one.

Solutions cannot be achieved until the problems have been identified, so if there are more on your mind, please don’t withhold your thoughts. The entire community that we’re both looking to protect are here as your witness. Express your specific misgivings and we can all discuss them.

Very very well put Justis. I agree with all of the points that you've made

This already happens? If you break the sub rule, the main rule is included in your warning. Think of it like washing your hair. You wouldn't put your shampoo on and wash your hair, then just decide to get out of the shower without rinsing the shampoo off. The same thing happens with sub rules.

This is the weirdest thing I've ever read on a suggestion thread.

Welp. Guess I can't ever suggest anything ever as anytime I make a suggestion, I get reamed by literally everyone. Have a good day all.

That's simply not what happened. You made a suggestion thread that didn't really give any information about what the problem is or any practical ways to resolve them, so it was mostly just us trying to work out what the specific problem that you were having is.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion