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.

 

[Kram]

I don't know why you'd say that.
What I said on a similar suggestion applies here too.

The people on the team wouldn't be here if they didn't care, there is no real incentive to be a staff member other than you care about the community. The reports backlog is the lowest it has been in 1-2 years, the scam reports are being controlled well by the team, and tickets have better response times they have had in a long time. If you think there is a staff member who is biased or abuses their power, please make a ticket with evidence of that.

MC-Market is more active, better staffed, and has a better community than 1-2 years ago in my opinion.

However, I will add that we have staff applications open for the next 2 weeks and with the specific goal in mind of getting active, rule abiding members to join the team. So, if anyone meets the requirements and is interested, I recommend applying.

Not much has changed in terms of what is or isn't acceptable. If anything, we've more strict across the board regarding what is sold and said. As for transparency, this is a topic I'd like to hear suggestions on because I don't know what the community would like to hear.

 

[Sullybash12]

I don't know why you'd say that.
What I said on a similar suggestion applies here too.

However, I will add that we have staff applications open for the next 2 weeks and with the specific goal in mind of getting active, rule abiding members to join the team. So, if anyone meets the requirements and is interested, I recommend applying.

Not much has changed in terms of what is or isn't acceptable. If anything, we've more strict across the board regarding what is sold and said. As for transparency, this is a topic I'd like to hear suggestions on because I don't know what the community would like to hear.

I think it would be better if you openly disclosed some of the staff requirements and desirable qualities.

 

[Kram]

I think it would be better if you openly disclosed some of the staff requirements and desirable qualities.

The requirements aren't going to be disclosed at all in order to prevent people from grinding to meet the requirements because that's not the point of the requirements.
As for desirable qualities, I've said what I personally look for when finding staff candidates in a past post as well as why we promoted some of the people we did. https://www.mc-market.org/threads/565325/#post-4393292

 

[SSH]

I don't know why you'd say that.
What I said on a similar suggestion applies here too.

However, I will add that we have staff applications open for the next 2 weeks and with the specific goal in mind of getting active, rule abiding members to join the team. So, if anyone meets the requirements and is interested, I recommend applying.

Not much has changed in terms of what is or isn't acceptable. If anything, we've more strict across the board regarding what is sold and said. As for transparency, this is a topic I'd like to hear suggestions on because I don't know what the community would like to hear.

You aren't addressing my main point:

new staff are learning from the old bad staff ways and becoming said bad staff

Please respond without dodging my question.

 

[Satan]

Allow me to also dip in on the roast

What part of of your "new staff are learning from the old bad staff ways are becoming said bad staff" is a "question" ? I don't see a ? mark, I don't see any hint/tone of a question in there.

I don't see this suggestion being thoroughly explained enough, backed by evidence, and even seriously thought through for the current staff let alone Mick who decides all these staffing protocols to take this thread seriously.

 

[Scroll32]

As for transparency, this is a topic I'd like to hear suggestions on because I don't know what the community would like to hear.

A suggestion here is when your post gets removed, or you get a warning, the staff member has to specifically state what you are breaking. For example, I got my post removed for breaking rule 5.6.1, but they didn't tell me that I broke that rule. I then asked specifically what got my thread removed, they then said "not meeting semi-og standards". I then ask what the standards are, and if I could post it in the charity thread. They don't respond and the community tells me thats fine, so I move the thread there and get the warning points. I am not saying this happens all the time, but if there was transparency on why my thread got removed in the 1st place, it wouldn't of been an issue and I would of dropped it.

 

[Geek]

A suggestion here is when your post gets removed, or you get a warning, the staff member has to specifically state what you are breaking.

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. We include the main rule in the warning, even if you are warned for the sub rule, as the sub rules are usually expansions or clarifications of the main rule. This just makes it easier to see bigger picture of the rule that you broke. The staff member might not have had a chance to respond as we get numerous PMs and day and are not always to respond to them super quick.

 

[Scroll32]

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. We include the main rule in the warning, even if you are warned for the sub rule, as the sub rules are usually expansions or clarifications of the main rule. This just makes it easier to see bigger picture of the rule that you broke. The staff member might not have had a chance to respond as we get numerous PMs and day and are not always to respond to them super quick.

Thats fair, but I don't think I meant once you do get a warning, rather before you do. For example before you get warning points, you Geta. verbal warning for multiple ads in 20 minutes. The thing is, they specifically tell you to not post ads in 20 minutes. But in some scenarios like my previous example, the staff member doesn't specifically state what rule you broke and just deletes your thread. I apologize for the lack of clarification, but what I am meaning is for verbal warnings, trashing threads and things in that nature.

 

[Geek]

Thats fair, but I don't think I meant once you do get a warning, rather before you do. For example before you get warning points, you Geta. verbal warning for multiple ads in 20 minutes. The thing is, they specifically tell you to not post ads in 20 minutes. But in some scenarios like my previous example, the staff member doesn't specifically state what rule you broke and just deletes your thread. I apologize for the lack of clarification, but what I am meaning is for verbal warnings, trashing threads and things in that nature.

There is a certain escalation that punishments follow. Not all escalations requires a verbal warning first, its usually up to the desecration of the staff member.

 

[Scroll32]

There is a certain escalation that punishments follow. Not all escalations requires a verbal warning first, its usually up to the desecration of the staff member.

Thats fine, I'm just saying if there is a verbal warning, tell the person what they did wrong, not that they didn't meet a vague "standard" that could be seen as a standard for one section and not the whole forum. I don't see whats wrong with being transparent about what you did wrong when deleting a thread or doing something wrong in chat.

 

[Geek]

Thats fine, I'm just saying if there is a verbal warning, tell the person what they did wrong, not that they didn't meet a vague "standard" that could be seen as a standard for one section and not the whole forum. I don't see whats wrong with being transparent about what you did wrong when deleting a thread or doing something wrong in chat.

So you would want more transparency with how violations break the rules? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Scroll32]

So you would want more transparency with how violations break the rules? Is that what you're saying?

correct, like stated in my first post this happens normally and that’s good, but having more of that would be helpful.

 

[Avery]

staffteam with people actually in the community

This is hard as now Mick/Justis are approving of a member. Now, what happens if/when that member decides to scam? It's too much of a risk to hire people actively trading especially in places such as account sales. Not to mention, Mick will never fire the entire team to find a new one, it's too much work and not necessary even if the entire staff team was rotten. You'd set back everything on MCM another few months while they're trained.

I feel like the entirety of your post is just to hop onto the bandwagon of "Staff bad". Give real examples, provide evidence of staff members not being how you want them to be. This is what corrects this from happening. Most staff are more then willing to discuss things with you if you reach out and ask them to and aren't just going to sit there with a pitchfork even if they've done nothing wrong.

Lastly, if you want it fixed, fix it yourself. There's a nice apply button at the top of the screen to apply to become staff if you meet the requirements.

 

[SSH]

Most staff are more then willing to discuss things with you if you reach out and ask them to and aren't just going to sit there with a pitchfork even if they've done nothing wrong.

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.

 

[Avery]

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.

If there's a forest fire the solution is to cut down all trees right? That's basically your plan.

The solution is to prevent future fires, plant more trees, be better people.

 

[Kram]

You aren't addressing my main point:

Please respond without dodging my question.

I didn't realize this is your main point and I didn't respond to it for a simple reason, I just simply disagree with it. I don't think new staff members are learning the "bad ways" of old staff members. It was so vague I can't disprove it or say it's a problem. I don't think it's an issue let alone a widely known one. If you can't provide examples because you don't want others to give a conflicting opinion on those examples, it just sounds like your arguments/examples weren't strong in the first place.
But since you gave an example to Avery:
If you have evidence of someone ignoring your ticket purposefully that's something that can be looked into, make a staff report with evidence. However, most of the time what happens is people will bump the ticket and then it'll end up taking longer to respond to or the staff member has higher priority things to handle or they are just busy with other things in their life.

 

[SSH]

However, most of the time what happens is people will bump the ticket and then it'll end up taking longer to respond to or the staff member has higher priority things to handle or they are just busy with other things in their life.

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.