proposal Community Advisor

[Nick 1,249 / 17,857]

First off, I would like to apologize for how I handled the situation last night (for me). I did not realize that what I did was, in fact, not a minor change in time, so I got defensive and acted like an idiot. I have reverted my rushed changes and will now try to properly communicate my proposal for changes:

 

Current Trusted

Our current Trusted team mostly consists of former staff. The group was originally made to rebuild GFL after a huge blow to our infrastructure if I recall correctly. Later it was mostly a consultant group which has been used to discuss proposals and situations. This group is highly inactive though (besides a few people), and I do not believe we're getting much value out of it. I do not believe we need a board of "trusted" people since most "trusted" tasks should be handled solely by the upper management. Many other proposals and situations could easily be handled by "less trusted individuals". This is why I want to introduce Community Advisors. 

 

Community Advisor (CA)

The group is intended for people who has valuable opinions, actively want to push GFL forward, and/or (has expert knowledge in a relevant area; not sure about this one). A CA will be able to follow most, if not all, discussions within the internal Discord and provide input and come up with ideas. Members of the group has no effective power over GFL; they are only able to partake in discussions among the staff. I would like this as a stepping stone for Council like we have (in my opinion) Server Managers as a stepping stone to DL. (Stepping stone as in it is possible to "step up" but you don't necessarily have to and not everyone will be able to) The election process for new members of CA should be done with the CAs and Council/DL+. 

 

Trusted

I initially wanted Trusted to be CAs and Council/DL+, but by adding CA, and losing the implicit requirements, we would lose some trust factor in the group as a whole. However, I don't see the point in granting some CAs/Trusted extra access, and most of our discussions are not sensitive anyway. Furthermore, I'm not sure whether CA should entirely replace Trusted. Some of you seem to want Trusted to stay like Trusted is. I personally believe we should change Trusted into CA, which would give us much more value. However, I would like some opinions on this. Maybe CA should be a new addition and Trusted should stay as is (though it needs to be cleaned up). 

[Cypher 1,187 / 11,383]

I definitely agree with the conception of the Trusted status. It was 100% designed to keep people that had valuable input around without demanding any sort of real work to be done.

 

My only word of advice would be to make sure that CA's are made to be something more than talking heads. It's really easy to come up with good ideas in theory; especially if they're not really required to do anything more than that. The changing of the ranks is wonderful, and in theory this would make the Community Advisors valuable to GFL. What isn't wonderful is if history repeats itself, this group ends up doing the same things that it has been doing, which is talking about great things and not making much happen.

 

 

[Cypher 1,187 / 11,383]

42 minutes ago, ButterKing5000 said:

I think this may be a good idea especially if history doesn’t repeat itself as Cypher said. Especially with plenty of our current trusted not being too helpful with much/at times (as far as I know; and not to call anyone out. I am aware some do continue to help where they can), fresh people with fresh ideas could be of use to us, especially if they don’t have to go through as much of a process as obtaining a higher rank.

 

At this point all these rank changes get confusing and/or annoying for plenty of people. I don’t know how this rank is supposed to be implemented, but I do think it might be best to not include the rank in any main GFL elements (i.e forum rank/badge) and generally keep it within internal discord, especially if as said, they carry no direct power. I suppose secondary group would still be necessary for forums though, but I don’t think it should be very publicized (people have it as a main rank with a whole unique color and all that). Essentially, don’t necessarily make this all a “secret”, but don’t go around publicizing it. As for finding people to fit the role, obviously we should be looking towards those doing things on their own without any incentive.

 

Typed this on my phone so yeah.

 

Totally agreed with this as well. There's a huge benefit to having people that have been with GFL for forever. I'll use myself as an example. I've always had plenty of opinions, and as I've gotten older, I've got so much to offer in the form of advice and opinion. There's also absolutely NO reason for me to hold a forum rank, or any sort of modicum of power in GFL anymore. I'm always super happy to help steer the ship in the right direction with words, but anything more than that at this point in my life is an impossibility. 

 

Nobody needs to think that oldheads like myself who don't do anything anymore are making any sort of huge decisions. 

[HackingPotato 1,297 / 14,301]

2 minutes ago, Cypher said:

I've got so much to offer in the form of advice and opinion. There's also absolutely NO reason for me to hold a forum rank, or any sort of modicum of power in GFL anymore

 

Literally me. I have a lot to say which is obviously apparent through discord but find giving a forum rank or power would be too much. I think a good start would be to clean out the current members and actually keep the people who upper management value when it comes to discussions. No point in keeping people who you don't listen to or value their insights. 

 

50 minutes ago, ButterKing5000 said:

As for finding people to fit the role, obviously we should be looking towards those doing things on their own without any incentive.

 

This. We should be cautious when adding someone to this group. In reality its easy to give suggestions and opinions but when put to the test you have to ask whether their insight was beneficial or helped in anyway. 

 

Only objection is the name change. Literally no use for the name change besides for an ego boost. 

[Nick 1,249 / 17,857]

1 minute ago, HackingPotato said:

Only objection is the name change. Literally no use for the name change besides for an ego boost. 

Hm, I believe CA sounds less meaningful than Trusted. Well, with CA being an "old" rank, I do get what you mean. 

 

1 hour ago, Cypher said:

My only word of advice would be to make sure that CA's are made to be something more than talking heads.

I don't mind if there are "talking heads" in this group. The people who are truly active and pushes for stuff to be done, should in the long run be considered for a Council position. I believe the new Trusted/CA should have room for people who solely voice their opinions/comes up with ideas but does so actively. 

 

I also completely agree with @ButterKing5000's point about keeping it only on the internal Discord. The only benefit they should be getting is more insight into GFL, and that does not require any publicity. 

[Cypher 1,187 / 11,383]

Those suggestions and opinions also hold much more weight when, in the eyes of the community, you're being held on a pedestal. From the higher-up standpoint, a newer member can introduce a fantastic idea to the server management staff, and it'll almost always be instantly brushed off because newer member isn't a part of our inner circle of trust. The CA's that are to be chosen carry much more worth in their words than anyone else. People that are going to be chosen for said role definitely need to be of the mind that what they say 100% of the time matters, and that if they're not willing to come forth and put work in to make sure their suggestions aren't more than empty promises of a better future for GFL, that they aren't fit for the roll. 

 

Edit: I see what you're saying @Nick. If you're using this position as an opinion chamber as well as a proving ground for something more in GFL, I could 100% see this being a successful means of doing so.

Edited March 12, 2018 by Cypher

[annoying furry 6,300 / 63,965]

Don't have time to read this right now, so sorry if someone already mentioned this, but maybe we should use another name to prevent it from being confused with the old CA?

[Nick 1,249 / 17,857]

1 minute ago, Xy_ said:

Don't have time to read this right now, so sorry if someone already mentioned this, but maybe we should use another name to prevent it from being confused with the old CA?

If we don't publicly use the name, it won't be a problem. But I wouldn't mind an alternative or just keeping Trusted. The most important thing in this proposal is to change the core idea of what Trusted/CA should be in my opinion. 

[Bigtime 322 / 6,475]

3 hours ago, Cypher said:

I definitely agree with the conception of the Trusted status. It was 100% designed to keep people that had valuable input around without demanding any sort of real work to be done.

I agree with this as well, I don't think I really want a role that is more than reading discussions and giving feedback/input or giving suggestions when I see fit. As I told a few and maybe even said in the discord I agreed with the change of name. After reading it better when I got on my PC the one thing I really liked with your idea of how CA would work is "Members of the group has no effective power over GFL; they are only able to partake in discussions among the staff. " I do kinda like the idea of leaving Trusted the way it is and possibly adding CA as separate group and cleaning up Trusted. This still applies even if I'm part of the "cleaning up" I feel there is a good chance I will be. I'm sure I could have worded this better but I just got up like 10 minutes ago so

[Thomasdavid097 533 / 8,791]

1 hour ago, Xy_ said:

Don't have time to read this right now, so sorry if someone already mentioned this, but maybe we should use another name to prevent it from being confused with the old CA?

yah I agree with this, changing name would be a better idea.

 

retired staff, still allowing them to have a say (better then the name trusted)

[annoying furry 6,300 / 63,965]

1 hour ago, Thomasdavid097 said:

retired staff

I believe nick would like this group to be more than just retired staff. I think just 'Advisor' (rather than Community Advisor) or 'Trusted' would probably be fine.

[Kim 953 / 11,372]

This will turn out like last time because you are scared to promote people to proper ranks and then you give everyone some sort of power and it will end in another conflict. :^)

 

 

me jumping out of this thread

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Kim

[Nick 1,249 / 17,857]

Alright, a proposal for implementing this based on your input:

• Change the name of Trusted to Community Advisor (CA). (The name should not confuse people since it won't be public)
• Remove any public showcase of Trusted. (CA should only in the internal Discord)
• CAs will keep access to the current #trusted channel.
• Clean up the current Trusted (now CA) team. (Remove inactive members who do not contribute)
• Start discussing new members of CA.

Definition of CA

A Community Advisor is a member of GFL who offers valuable input and is deemed useful by the Trusted (new definition; see below). A CA has no effective power in GFL and can only help with decisions by providing their opinion. It is only required that they actively voice their opinions on matter presented to them. Furthermore, CA is also a stepping stone for people to prove themselves by going beyond the minimum requirement for their activity. However, nothing is guaranteed and it is all ultimately up to the upper management. 

 

Further discussion points

This should get us going for now. Furthermore, I have a proposal for a new definition of Trusted: Trusted is CAs & Council/DL+ (CAs and upper management). What's your opinion about this? Will we be alright with the new (lower) requirements and the content of #trusted? Do we need a channel for sensitive discussions? Should the definition be changed?

[Cypher 1,187 / 11,383]

I feel like your new "Trusted" Rank is implied at this point. Theoretically, the CAs and the Council and DLs are already the "Trusted" members of the community. There's no reason to muddle the ranks further with another encompassing rank. Let the new CA position exist, and then look to them when you need stuff. I also don't see a reason to lower the content of #Trusted. If you need a channel for some sort of special discussions, just use what you already have. No need to go restructuring for what amounts to a monimal change in rank and file.

[Winter 1,707 / 25,782]

What will be the policy of the community advisor regarding the discord? (E.g. moderation, mod-chat, applications, etc)

[Bigtime 322 / 6,475]

Will access to theses forums also stay the same? You only said access to #trusted in the discord would remain the same.

[Snoopy 1,480 / 15,610]

I'm a little confused. Will the new "CA" rank have a forum rank? And is all trusted stuff on the forum being removed off the forums so we can't see it? I've cleared out a lot of my discord channels so I've only got a few and I don't really want to be joining more. I've always been a strong believer of having things documented on the forums so it's there as a record as to who said what and it's there if we need it in the future. 

[Rcool64 1,007 / 16,299]

So from what I'm understanding, under this system, is CA being given to any individual who can be trusted with sensitive information and can give valuable insight?

 

I want to know a little bit more about how the forums/discord would work for this group, but one thing I want to bring up is that if we make CA regarded as a lower "rank", we should be wary of who we pick as CA's because even though they have no power, they still are able to see and leak private info to their friends or even the public.

[Nick 1,249 / 17,857]

On 3/16/2018 at 8:05 PM, Winter said:

What will be the policy of the community advisor regarding the discord? (E.g. moderation, mod-chat, applications, etc)

CAs does not have an effective power in GFL. So they will not have a say in applications either; they exist solely to provide valuable input and suggestions to the upper-management (and other members in the internal Discord). They have no public representation outside of the internal Discord (e.g. no badge). Do we need a system for team leaders wanting CAs' opinions? 

 

On 3/16/2018 at 9:16 PM, Bigtime388 said:

Will access to theses forums also stay the same? You only said access to #trusted in the discord would remain the same.

I want the permissions to stay the same on forums too.

 

I have worried a lot about what @Rcool64 said. I want CA to be a board of people actively contributing to discussions which is radically different from what Trusted is at the moment. Most discussions in #trusted are not too sensitive, but, as you know, I have thought about creating an extra channel for Council/DL+ where sensitive topics (hopefully rarely) could be discussed. 

[Nick 1,249 / 17,857]

I would like to come with an update on this. I have thought a lot about this, and I have personally come to a common conclusion; is this change really necessary? As many mentioned early on: Anyone can help without getting access to our discussions.

 

My counter-proposal is granting these people access to our internal discussions either as project managers or consultants. For now, I won't pursue this idea further. If anyone wants to pick it up, please feel free too. Sorry for a lot of wasted discussions