Voting upon staff members.

[Herobrine]

Alright, I am going to start of by saying the community needs to be way more involved with the decisions of Mc-Market. Here is a suggestion of an extra way this can be incorporated.

Suggestion:
Have a voting system for choosing staff members.

Here's how it would work. Mick, or whoever chooses staff will pick around 5 who they think are worthy of the job. They would then put those 5 people, into a voting system where the community would vote for who they would want best. I think that then there wouldn't be so much controversy over newly picked staff members. Lately there was a large controversy over Coco being picked as moderator. I personally am fine with this decision, as Mick is saying he didn't choose it. Others are saying that she was only picked because of her and Mick. This would eliminate that, and we could have the staff members we can agree with.

Of course with all things, there are ways people can cheat through the system, here is a way to eliminate that. People could make a bunch of Alt accounts, and vote for the same person a bunch of times. A way to eliminate this, is by making it so only Premium people can vote. This way it will show that dedicated people are the ones voting for the staff members.

If you agree with this system, feel free to leave the "Agree" rating, or reply! If you don't reply with the reason.

 

[Herobrine]

Sometimes "more community involvement" isn't always the best solution.
For example, the chatbox: Mick polled the community which chatbox software they would prefer. There was a clear winner which was implemented shortly thereafter. Then people raged about it and demanded that Mick involve the community more in future decisions.

As it has been said, involving the community in picking staff would make it a popularity contest (even if admins picked the candidates).
If we released a list of potential candidates, there would be so much competition and division in the community. Plus, whoever didn't win would probably feel bad and animosity towards whoever won.
I can attest that Coco was not chosen by Mick. Admins asked the current mods who they think would be a good potential mod (preferably a current chatmod).
Some suggestions were made (only 2 candidates as far as I recall) and Coco was promoted.

If it were up to the community, I believe I would be voted out in a heartbeat (just check my signature - I will be adding more to it once I have my loaner laptop on Monday).
I think one of the reasons why I'm even a mod is because I will kick/ban people, still knowing that most of them will flame, disrespect, and disagree with me (as mentioned by Dragonfly).

Of course there is going to be people who dislike other people. When a president is elected, does every person like them? No. We have to go with the majority of people. People are going to dislike you, and people are going to dislike other staff, but you can back yourself up by saying most voted for me.

 

[Justis]

This seems to be a more specific duplicate of Tulip's post...
Though it targets the same subject.

No, staff should not be voted on.

"Only staff members know what it's like in that role.
And only experienced staff members, who've seen what the shoe is like... Can determine who can fill it.
Members have no idea what it's like being staff, until they've tried it.
We've had three resignations in the past month.
Do you really think that a site full of members can determine who's fit for a role?
No... It should be kept between the admins and that member.
Besides... Honestly... There aren't enough good candidates.
That number gets knocked down after some people refuse the position..
You'd likely end up with a list of one member chioces... If you're lucky."

 

[thebaum64]

No offense, but this would not turn out well at all... What would happen would be every vote would be biased, based upon favoritism. Most likely, the winner would not even be fit to be a staff member. It would not be good for the site nor you, the users, in the long run.

 

[Arcrimonia]

If this was implemented, people would not take it seriously, and everyone would vote for their friends. There really is not solution other than letting the current staff choose.

 

[Herobrine]

If this was implemented, people would not take it seriously, and everyone would vote for their friends. There really is not solution other than letting the current staff choose.

No offense, but this would not turn out well at all... What would happen would be every vote would be biased, based upon favoritism. Most likely, the winner would not even be fit to be a staff member. It would not be good for the site nor you, the users, in the long run.

I'm not sure that you guys understand. Mick, or whoever chooses staff members would hand pick 5, and make sure they're all worthy of the job. We then would vote on which one we would like added for the job. We aren't just voting for randy's, the people who we're voting for are already interviewed.

 

[thebaum64]

I'm not sure that you guys understand. Mick, or whoever chooses staff members would hand pick 5, and make sure they're all worthy of the job. We then would vote on which one we would like added for the job. We aren't just voting for randy's, the people who we're voting for are already interviewed.

Then I completely misunderstood all of that lol, then i have no issue with this

 

[tjrgg]

I'm not sure that you guys understand. Mick, or whoever chooses staff members would hand pick 5, and make sure they're all worthy of the job. We then would vote on which one we would like added for the job. We aren't just voting for randy's, the people who we're voting for are already interviewed.

Honestly, what would be the point of this? This would literally just be a popularity contest between 5 people. There wouldn't be any value in this at all, except maybe giving staff members a false sense of "power".

This doesn't even consider that it's hard for us to find 1 person to pick at any given time, let alone 5.

 

[thebaum64]

Honestly, what would be the point of this? This would literally just be a popularity contest between 5 people. There wouldn't be any value in this at all, except maybe giving staff members a false sense of "power".

This doesn't even consider that it's hard for us to find 1 person to pick at any given time, let alone 5.

Yes picking up to 5 is hard, but having them select is not a bad idea. It gives a sense of democracy of sorts so they have a say in one of those five based on who they like more and upon their personal traits and who they think would work better. Even if that one person went into a trial period, it would still be something.

 

[Ivain]

If I may add to that, I would recommend doing the picking via an Anonymous poll or google form or some such. At least in some way that the results are not visible. Otherwise people are going to constantly complain about it.
I'm not sure if the voting should be the thing that makes the decision, however it may be an idea to give the "public's favorite" some plus points in final consideration.

 

[Overlord]

Forums are not a democracy. Regardless, members here aren't able to choose good people.

This forum needs capable staff and this means you get illiterate staff.

 

[Herobrine]

Forums are not a democracy. Regardless, members here aren't able to choose good people.

This forum needs capable staff and this means you get illiterate staff.

This does not mean you get illiterate staff. Would you guys read the thread before commenting? Staff would hand choose the best people for the job, maybe around 3-5. They then would put those 3-5 in a voting system, and we would vote for which one we would want and which one is best for the position. It's like the president, they have the top people, then we vote.

 

[Ivain]

(may not have been a good choice to compare to a presidential election, we all know how that's turning out...)

 

[TheDiamondYT]

Then being staff turns into a popularity contest. Someone who's perfect for the job might be hated by everyone (I know this firsthand)

But if everybody hates them, they are not perfect for the job as people want to like their staff members and by not being liked that staff member is not meeting the people's expectations.

 

[Overlord]

This does not mean you get illiterate staff. Would you guys read the thread before commenting? Staff would hand choose the best people for the job, maybe around 3-5. They then would put those 3-5 in a voting system, and we would vote for which one we would want and which one is best for the position. It's like the president, they have the top people, then we vote.

Not like president, anyone can become president meeting basic criteria. I did read the thread. The most popular one would win. This isn't a democracy or a damn game, it's about giving a trusting position to someone that fully deserves it, and not many do.

Also, presidencies are a mess and it's a statue waiting to collapse.

 

[Herobrine]

Not like president, anyone can become president meeting basic criteria. I did read the thread. The most popular one would win. This isn't a democracy or a damn game, it's about giving a trusting position to someone that fully deserves it, and not many do.

Also, presidencies are a mess and it's a statue waiting to collapse.

The best become president though, the voting system is like a presidency. The best ones for the job are put into a poll, and we vote on the one who we think will be best for the job.

 

[Overlord]

The best become president though, the voting system is like a presidency. The best ones for the job are put into a poll, and we vote on the one who we think will be best for the job.

Not really. Presidency is a popularity contest. I mean, Kanye West is running... It's surprising Obama won the elections. Essentially, celebrities could go into politics and all back each other and they'd win, due to celebrity influence. It's a damn joke of a system. We've seen this with the Kesha incident recently. The judge made the right call, yet it's questioned by many. Journalists question it because it's a 'controversial' topic and it gets them views and people are just blinded, clueless fans who follow anything a celebrity says. So, following this, it's not about "the best", it's about the most popular, and that never works.

There hasn't been a really good U.S. president in a while. UK has had a bunch of crappy prime ministers. The whole idea of country represented leaders isn't democratic at all, and it sucks.