[daeganislegit]

Note: As a result of this system, sponsors are no longer needed for staff apps in TTT.

time for 50 more apps to be denied

[Seeker]

"Voting used to be open to all staff, but it ended up turning into a situation where you had to be friends with the right people to get anywhere, and certain groups would just force people out they didn’t like. "

That's literally how it will be now, people are still forcing out people they don't like. What i was trying to get at is because of these committees the issue will be even more prevalent and will only further the rumors of favoritism among certain staff

These groups wont just go unchecked. Admins will still be there to ensure history doesn't repeat itself.

So essentially, just have a few more friends higher up than you used to, if you're in the lower tier. And if you're in the higher tier, just do what you always do? Sounds good.

"Voting used to be open to all staff, but it ended up turning into a situation where you had to be friends with the right people to get anywhere, and certain groups would just force people out they didn’t like. "

That's literally how it will be now, people are still forcing out people they don't like. What i was trying to get at is because of these committees the issue will be even more prevalent and will only further the rumors of favoritism among certain staff

We can either try something that's never been tried before or go back to a system that's failed before. It's worth trying and we brought this idea up to all staff before making this post and no one had an issue in public or private with trying this system.

This seems like like the old system with extra steps. You just have to convince whoever's on the "committee" to do what you want. Win them over, and you're golden. Hey, you made it into a shitty republic, like Roman, and you're playing Caesar. Everyone thinks they get a say when in reality it all comes down to a few final says.

Sorry to sound pessimistic but with how infrequently things get done, for one, and how many little cliques get formed, these tiny groups are begging to be "bought" by the right people.

[TDawg4]

My opinion on this is how it is executed. The system could work or it could fail. I'm glad something new is being done.

However, if a large problem arises like what just happened all committee members should get a vote. As to avoid as much as possible groups trying to oust others.

Thanks for trying to make a change. Hoping to see it work out.

edit: maybe add an activity committee it wouldn't be hard and it would directly aid the system as a whole.

[Seeker]

This seems like like the old system with extra steps. You just have to convince whoever's on the "committee" to do what you want. Win them over, and you're golden. Hey, you made it into a shitty republic, like Roman, and you're playing Caesar. Everyone thinks they get a say when in reality it all comes down to a few final says.

Sorry to sound pessimistic but with how infrequently things get done, for one, and how many little cliques get formed, these tiny groups are begging to be "bought" by the right people.

Not that I feel any one way about this whole thing (read: I am entirely neutral about it), but lets say this is 100% certain that this is how these committees will turn out - if the promoted staff do their jobs correctly/efficiently/as expected, is it necessarily...bad that they got promoted this way? On the flip side, assuming that this IS 100% true may also entail that people that do not have the favor of these committees would be excluded from staff, but the admins would be able to effectively keep this in check, no? Moreover, assuming applications would remain public to everyone, wouldn't it be easy to catch these exclusionary situations?

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."

[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.

[VolfVoss]

I look forward to seeing this new system of yours in action. 

[Seeker]

Well, thanks Proper, Penguin. That addresses some of my concerns fairly well. Hopefully this works out for the community and if it doesn't, well, something else will have to be done. Not impossible.

Time to test the new found committee process via a staff app.

[happy]

This shows some promise with involving more of the staff in the decisions being made. I look forward to see how it turns out.

[matt_st3 (Strongrule)]

Tbh it sounds like mods voting with excess steps.
Yes I see the Tmod

[Swartsy]

From my experience in past communities, most of them allowed all and only staff to vote on applications. This standard system always worked fine. However I’m curious, because this could work too.

This shows me that there’s more commitment, and that upper staff is listening to it’s fellow players.
It’s a good step in the right direction, keep it up and thanks for that.

---

Oh yeah 1 suggestion, Gabe’s forum name should be changed to Gaybe.
ha gotem