relick
Welcome to Eientei!
Posts: 935
Favorite Game: Double Dealing CharacterFavorite Character: Rin KaenbyouCustom Title: Welcome to Eientei!Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"http://i.imgur.com/DE6ayQP.png","color":"e32222"}Mini Profile Text Color: 000000Mini-Profile Name Color: 000000Mini-Profile Text Border: WhiteOverride Avatar (Auto-Extended Mini-Profile): Enable
|
Post by relick on Jul 11, 2015 11:18:49 GMT
Posting for Proto because the page won't load for him for some reason. (I second his stance as well.) The alteration I'd make to this is having the discussion after carrying it out, and only if people raise objections. A retroactive discussion like this is far more efficient and allows the staff to do one of their most basic jobs (applying the rules) without being bogged down in potentially unnecessary discussion. And if a staff member takes the right decisions then there should never be a need for a discussion (but the mechanism is there in case a ban decision is disputed). From the staff's perspective, it is indeed more efficient to ban first without discussing it with the rest of the staff. However, I don't think this is fair for the members. At least when they are warned, they don't lose any privileges that normal members get, so retroactively negating a warn should not have any negative consequences. However, a ban completely removes all of the user's forum privileges, and I don't think it's right to do so without proper approval from the staff as a whole. Innocent until proven guilty, and we don't want to hand out punishments until after the staff agree that it's justified. The staff should work as a group and discuss matters that will improve the forum for the community. I don't think members want to be in a community where they can be banned without proper justification approved by the whole staff. Better to prevent unjustified bans in the first place than to just let them happen with the mindset that the decision can be reversed. And besides, if somebody's offenses are so severe that a ban would not be disputed, then the staff discussion involving the ban of this member would likely be quite short and quickly resolved, which should be efficient enough. If there are some objections, then it's better to address them before carrying out the ban.. You have identified a problem with the staff in that you're worried that alone they will make the wrong decision and so will prevent that situation by making sure that every important decision is babysit by all the staff. If a staff member bans someone, but in the retroactive discussion it was decided it was the wrong decision, then I see no reason why members would complain if you then: - apologised and unbanned - clearly reprimanded the staff member in question (if a single staff member does unjust things too often perhaps they are not even suitable to be staff? regardless of their input if they can't do their job properly then they shouldn't be there) - refined the rules/staff code of conduct to make sure it doesn't happen in the future Your method will be effective in preventing unjust outcomes in the first place but my method will be effective in ensuring the staff get better at their jobs, which will mean the community would put more faith in them. Not only that, a staff team would be more effective if they believed there was enough trust in them that they could act independently without being required to discuss every decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 3:26:29 GMT
Posting for Proto because the page won't load for him for some reason. (I second his stance as well.) From the staff's perspective, it is indeed more efficient to ban first without discussing it with the rest of the staff. However, I don't think this is fair for the members. At least when they are warned, they don't lose any privileges that normal members get, so retroactively negating a warn should not have any negative consequences. However, a ban completely removes all of the user's forum privileges, and I don't think it's right to do so without proper approval from the staff as a whole. Innocent until proven guilty, and we don't want to hand out punishments until after the staff agree that it's justified. The staff should work as a group and discuss matters that will improve the forum for the community. I don't think members want to be in a community where they can be banned without proper justification approved by the whole staff. Better to prevent unjustified bans in the first place than to just let them happen with the mindset that the decision can be reversed. And besides, if somebody's offenses are so severe that a ban would not be disputed, then the staff discussion involving the ban of this member would likely be quite short and quickly resolved, which should be efficient enough. If there are some objections, then it's better to address them before carrying out the ban.. You have identified a problem with the staff in that you're worried that alone they will make the wrong decision and so will prevent that situation by making sure that every important decision is babysit by all the staff. If a staff member bans someone, but in the retroactive discussion it was decided it was the wrong decision, then I see no reason why members would complain if you then: - apologised and unbanned - clearly reprimanded the staff member in question (if a single staff member does unjust things too often perhaps they are not even suitable to be staff? regardless of their input if they can't do their job properly then they shouldn't be there) - refined the rules/staff code of conduct to make sure it doesn't happen in the future Your method will be effective in preventing unjust outcomes in the first place but my method will be effective in ensuring the staff get better at their jobs, which will mean the community would put more faith in them. Not only that, a staff team would be more effective if they believed there was enough trust in them that they could act independently without being required to discuss every decision. My stance is that,since many of our operations lack professionalism (since we've never done this before) and need refining as a group. Thus training as a group for the time being to eliminate this issue, as well as to give all of us experience over a wider range of problems than those encountered on their own, is most efficient in my opinion. We can become more autonomous once we get some of our policies straight (such as what constitutes trolling, how should we handle bans, what posts should we delete and where do we draw the line?). I'm hoping for us to train as a group for now during the time where there is a lack of structure, until we can build this structure. |
|
relick
Welcome to Eientei!
Posts: 935
Favorite Game: Double Dealing CharacterFavorite Character: Rin KaenbyouCustom Title: Welcome to Eientei!Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"http://i.imgur.com/DE6ayQP.png","color":"e32222"}Mini Profile Text Color: 000000Mini-Profile Name Color: 000000Mini-Profile Text Border: WhiteOverride Avatar (Auto-Extended Mini-Profile): Enable
|
Post by relick on Jul 13, 2015 13:38:45 GMT
You have identified a problem with the staff in that you're worried that alone they will make the wrong decision and so will prevent that situation by making sure that every important decision is babysit by all the staff. If a staff member bans someone, but in the retroactive discussion it was decided it was the wrong decision, then I see no reason why members would complain if you then: - apologised and unbanned - clearly reprimanded the staff member in question (if a single staff member does unjust things too often perhaps they are not even suitable to be staff? regardless of their input if they can't do their job properly then they shouldn't be there) - refined the rules/staff code of conduct to make sure it doesn't happen in the future Your method will be effective in preventing unjust outcomes in the first place but my method will be effective in ensuring the staff get better at their jobs, which will mean the community would put more faith in them. Not only that, a staff team would be more effective if they believed there was enough trust in them that they could act independently without being required to discuss every decision. My stance is that,since many of our operations lack professionalism (since we've never done this before) and need refining as a group. Thus training as a group for the time being to eliminate this issue, as well as to give all of us experience over a wider range of problems than those encountered on their own, is most efficient in my opinion. We can become more autonomous once we get some of our policies straight (such as what constitutes trolling, how should we handle bans, what posts should we delete and where do we draw the line?). I'm hoping for us to train as a group for now during the time where there is a lack of structure, until we can build this structure. I already said this to Proto, but I'll repeat here so it's public - I don't mind what you decide to do in the end. Either can work. I'm just offering my suggestion from my experience of being on staff teams as well as my ideals. If you think that the staff are not even ready to start learning to act like staff members (which is what I guess you think judging by your post), then you should all probably get some proper training for a couple of weeks or something once all the rules are sorted; given by people who have experience running forums. I, on the other hand, don't think you are anywhere near as useless as that and I've got enough trust in each of the staff to not act stupidly the moment they're given some autonomy. Note: you can continue to train as a group without necessarily forcing all decisions through a group. |
|
