[Penguinslayer4]

Got some examples.

Example: Person A and Person B are applying for staff. Person A isn't the best candidate, but they're good friends with one or two of the people on the committee, and some other staff. Person B is an excellent candidate, but a few of the members on the committee don't particularly like them for personal reasons.

Who is more likely to get approved?

Example: Person A submits a Ban request for Person B and has sufficient evidence. Person A has had a difficult time with them, as Person B has been making playing difficult for Person A and others for quite some time. Person B is close friends with the members of the committee. They dismiss and rebuttal the evidence, saying it isn't enough and more needs to be gathered. Now Person A is upset and has an even bigger target on their back.

What should Person A do?

Example: Person A has been banned for some time and knows they have very little chance of becoming unbanned. Their old friend is now a committee member. They submit an unban request and nudge their friend for some good faith.

How is this fair to other people waiting to get unbanned?

I know these are very specific, and we are hoping that the staff will be unbiased, but everyone is human. It's impossible for people to not make mistakes or unbiased decisions. I understand that's what the committee is for, but we've already seen how much a group can easily be swayed or what can happen when one or two people say "I don't really want to have much say in this."

Literally that 2nd example is why we still have ban requests and such, evidence is still made public. It isn't like no one gets to see the evidence or if they make an unban request the evidence won't be provided. If staff were biased why would we bother with ban requests to begin with?

The committee's are multiple people voting on something, not just 1 person making the decision, so asking "a friend" for help wouldn't sway everyone on the committee without providing substantial evidence to support your case. And likewise, whether the staff votes for or against something they need to provide reasons as to why they are voting that way to ensure they aren't showing favoritism or have personal issues motivating their voting.
It's the same with voting publicly on a staff app, you can't just say +1 or -1 and not give a reason, you have to support your answer with facts otherwise your vote isn't valid.

With that being said, that is why the admins still oversee everything and if your reasoning starts to show favoritism or personal bias you get removed from the committee. 

I find it funny that the main issue for people is letting all staff vote xD whereas before no one raised the argument when the admins made the decision who was staff or promoted, "well why wouldn't you just kiss up to the admins?" 

This allowing a wider voting pool to allow more input and insight on issues or apps, and will help make the decision more confident and solid seeing as it isn't just 2 people voting on everything.

And quite honestly, I think this could really help the community as a whole, as well as the staff team. Staff being more involved with decisions made for the community, rather than it just being the admins who make decisions, will be better in my opinion.

And who knows, maybe it will fail, and maybe it won't. But either way, it's worth a shot. And quite honestly, after recent events, it can't really get a whole lot worse. so why not give something new a try that could end up being really beneficial? Theres a difference between now and back then when all staff could vote on things, it's a completely different staff team full of different views and personalities. 

I think it's time we started trying to make changes that could benefit the server, staff, and community. We have to at least try.