Ability to View Applications

[Rhysin_ 540 / 13,177]

1 minute ago, JGuary55 said:

I mean you are putting someone to a admin position, dont you think your player base should know who is/isnt getting accepted as admin? 

We have the staff list to show them who is an admin. If SMs want they can make an announcement for new admins every once and a while but why do they need to see what the staff thinks about an applicant? I get wanting to make sure that there isn't any favoritism in the applications, and wanting to know who might become an admin, but favoritism would be most likely be reported to the DL unles sthe whole staff team is bad, and once again staff lists.

[Pyros 1,796 / 30,750]

5 minutes ago, Amelie said:

-“If it’a implemented”. It was already a thing before.

It was only a thing due to an IPS problem, it wasn't a thing due to we wanting it to be.

 

3 minutes ago, JGuary55 said:

I mean you are putting someone to a admin position, dont you think your player base should know who is/isnt getting accepted as admin? 

They don't really need to know who is or isn't getting accepted. There is a Staff list that can be checked regarding new admins and people can always DM the Manager regarding new admins.

 

2 minutes ago, Amelie said:

You are not saving this player from leaving, you are simply saving them from being bullied about that one thing.

We should avoid creating more things that can be used to harass or bully people.

 

3 minutes ago, Amelie said:

Say X joins GFL. Y and Z decide they really don’t like this person. They make an application, and harassment ensues. If the mods assist, and the appropriate people are dealt with, X will not wish to leave. 

This rarely happens, I've been DMed more than once by people whose friend is being harassed because they were afraid of speaking up themselves.

[jarm323 170 / 6,621]

1 minute ago, Amelie said:

-“People don’t need to know what staff members think.” Yes, we do. .

 

As Blazing said, you don't need to know that information. If you're not part of that Division or even Server Staff. It doesn't concern you. We could apply your same logic as for other ranks too.  It is as if I said. "I need to know what DL+ think and talk about other people." No, we do not need to know. They are there for a reason, and they know how to handle stuff.  The general public doesn't need to know what happens or what is discussed behind the scenes. 

 

Go to a big company and tell them "I'm your customer, so I need to know what your staff team is doing and thinking about everything." Do you see how illogical that is?

 

2 minutes ago, JGuary55 said:

I mean you are putting someone to a admin position, dont you think your player base should know who is/isnt getting accepted as admin? 

If someone gets accepted, sooner or later they will know about it, either on the Staff list or in game. They do not need to know if someone was rejected and the reasons why. The player base doesn't need that kind of information. 

 

A lot of people write some stuff that may be categorized as """sensitive information""" that shouldn't be able to be seen by just anyone. 

 

[JGuary55 707 / 14,712]

oof got quoted, tbh I really dont care lol, its just thinking of the playerbase, letting them know whos getting accepted and what not, I see both sides of this 

[Amelie 434 / 7,376]

1 minute ago, jarm323 said:

 

As Blazing said, you don't need to know that information. If you're not part of that Division or even Server Staff. It doesn't concern you. We could apply your same logic as for other ranks too.  It is as if I said. "I need to know what DL+ think and talk about other people." No, we do not need to know. They are there for a reason, and they know how to handle stuff.  The general public doesn't need to know what happens or what is discussed behind the scenes. 

 

Go to a big company and tell them "I'm your customer, so I need to know what your staff team is doing and thinking about everything." Do you see how illogical that is?

 

If someone gets accepted, sooner or later they will know about it, either on the Staff list or in game. They do not need to know if someone was rejected and the reasons why. The player base doesn't need that kind of information. 

 

A lot of people write some stuff that may be categorized as """sensitive information""" that shouldn't be able to be seen by just anyone. 

 

This take is extremely elitist. “You don’t need to know that” I don’t need to know who is going to represent me? Who is going to enforce the rules? Who is going to be choosing the maps? The admins? Who is going to taking GFL to new directions? You’re taking away the only communication members have with higher ups. I won’t stand for this attitude. How is someone’s application sensitive information? This is all public knowledge. What are you so afraid of us seeing?

[Rhysin_ 540 / 13,177]

Just now, Amelie said:

This take is extremely elitist. “You don’t need to know that” I don’t need to know who is going to represent me? Who is going to enforce the rules? Who is going to be choosing the maps? The admins? Who is going to taking GFL to new directions? You’re taking away the only communication members have with higher ups. I won’t stand for this attitude. How is someone’s application sensitive information? This is all public knowledge. What are you so afraid of us seeing?

That's not what was said
What was said is you don't need to know what the admins said about a certain applicant. You have staff lists to show you who is an admin. You don't need to know what admins said. You see that they were accepted. You don't need to know who got denied. If there is any wrong-doing in the applications, it will most likely get reported to the Division Leader.

[Pyros 1,796 / 30,750]

2 minutes ago, Amelie said:

You’re taking away the only communication members have with higher ups.

Applications are not the only communication between members and higher ups.

2 minutes ago, Amelie said:

How is someone’s application sensitive information?

Sometimes admins bring up concerns that could spark some drama and/or contain info that we don't wish to be public.

 

3 minutes ago, Amelie said:

What are you so afraid of us seeing?

Nothing much, we just don't believe members need to see applications. The same way you don't see job applications being public or the same way you don't see applications for volunteers position public.

[JuicyBenny 91 / 0]

From my experience i always watched applications just myself to see how they were conducted and how each admin took to them. i thought it was really fucking transparent. I respected it.

Rarely did i ever see one (and im mainly talking with ROT applications, as i only viewed those occasionally) rarely did i see a random member comment on one. So that concern is swifted for me. However, i do understand the concern for someone getting rejected and feeling down on it. I think harassment is easy to combat its just a matter of selective enforcement. it shouldent happen in the first place though. This loses a bit of that really cool transparency factor however in exchange gains security into the fact the potential for harassment over a rejected application is nulled.

For me personally its not a REQUIRED feature. Though im one who loves transparency. its a rarity in general anyway. Its a move thats not really that important. it gives security to those who apply and that it will be in the safety of closed doors.

[Amelie 434 / 7,376]

Just now, Pyros said:

Applications are not the only communication between members and higher ups.

Sometimes admins bring up concerns that could spark some drama and/or contain info that we don't wish to be public.

 

Nothing much, we just don't believe members need to see applications. The same way you don't see job applications being public or the same way you don't see applications for volunteers position public.

-It has been said in this thread that members are afraid, due to elitism. Having barriers will just widen the gap. 
 

-Yes, I know about the things that spark drama. But how can members trust GFL not to do what the mod TL did? How can we trust GFL not to wait 7 months.

 

-A huge problem of the turnover rates were from people feeling “burnt out”. I assume this is because it begins to feel like a job. Let’s take the capitalist corporation HR feeling out.

[JuicyBenny 91 / 0]

19 minutes ago, JGuary55 said:

I mean you are putting someone to a admin position, dont you think your player base should know who is/isnt getting accepted as admin? 

My main problem with this mentality would be some players can change their entire outlook on someone who is rejected by a single admin who they might be friends with. which leads to another individual who either dislikes or flat out disrespects them as an admin. when it should be an even feel. Thats just with the accepted players. The denied have more of a chance for others to use "criticism" as a means for harm

The only positive i can see with having them public is that transparency aspect. Any others can easily be turned on the head and used equally for bad from those who seek that.

[Amelie 434 / 7,376]

1 minute ago, JuicyBenny said:

My main problem with this mentality would be some players can change their entire outlook on someone who is rejected by a single admin who they might be friends with. which leads to another individual who either dislikes or flat out disrespects them as an admin. when it should be an even feel. Thats just with the accepted players. The denied have more of a chance for others to use "criticism" as a means for harm

The only positive i can see with having them public is that transparency aspect. Any others can easily be turned on the head and used equally for bad from those who seek that.

I feel the same way. And I completely understand the aspect that it opens doors for harassment and bullying. However, the people that harass and bully aren’t going to stop because of this. They aren’t going to do it less. The only thing that will happen is a wider gap between the higher ups and normal players. 

[JuicyBenny 91 / 0]

Just now, Amelie said:

I feel the same way. And I completely understand the aspect that it opens doors for harassment and bullying. However, the people that harass and bully aren’t going to stop because of this. They aren’t going to do it less. The only thing that will happen is a wider gap between the higher ups and normal players. 

There IS already a giant gap between the regular players and higher ups. There IS already a massive issue when it comes to proper communication. However, this is not that effect. Its another whole conversation itself that portion

You're right it wont stop people harassing others. but its going to stop part of it. It gets rid of another avenue for people to use. Which is a positive. Less harassment = good. i think there's many steps GFL can take to prevent more of that, but the argument of "they arent going to do it less" is false. cause if this is something. that causes more cases of it. if this creates MORE for people to use as ammo in hate fulled tyrants. Then yes, it no longer being public makes it happen less. less ammo means less amount of times you can fire. Sure they can get more ammo from other places maybe. But its less easy now. They cant use this avenue now.

[Rhysin_ 540 / 13,177]

I get the want for transparency. It's a nice thing to have. I'd like things to be more transparent too, but this is an area where transparency isn't needed. You don't need to see the process, just the end result. The only argument that I personally would say in favor of making them public, is that it gives future applicants a reference into what admins may comment and what to do when they comment such. I used past applications as a reference back when I was looking to apply for TTT MC for the first time. It was helpful. But you can get the same reference by asking admins what their application process was like.
 

2 minutes ago, Amelie said:

The only thing that will happen is a wider gap between the higher ups and normal players. 

I don't understand why admin applications cause a gap between players and higher ups. To me, higher up is DL+, and DLs don't generally have a hand in server admin applications. You can still see who becomes admin and anything wrong that happened with the application will most likely get reported to the DL. 
There are many things causing the gap between higher ups and players, but this is not one of those things, imo.
You could definitely find other areas that actually might need transparency, but this is not one of those areas.

[Dominic 135 / 2,013]

I've expressed a lot of my thoughts in the staff Discord on this topic already, but I'm going to do it more formally here. I find it very odd that applications aren't public in the slightest.

 

This isn't a situation where transparency is being requested where it isn't due. These decisions directly affect the general population. Someone applying for admin on a server will now be administrating that server if accepted and overseeing those players. Those players have valuable input on that player. They can oftentimes accurately comment on that player's character, attitude, etc. The most valuable part of their input is that they may see how the candidate acts when admins aren't online. I think it's fair for the same to be said about Discord moderators, and maybe forum moderators, but I'm more iffy on the latter. However, the general public wouldn't really have much valuable input on people applying for positions like GFX or Developer, nor would they be affected by them pretty much at all. I think it's fair to not want to make these public. On the other hand, it allows the public to hold team leaders accountable. Applications shouldn't be sitting there for months on end without any sort of explanation, nor should people be accepted without valid reasoning / qualifications.

 

Harassment and toxicity seems to be the most prominent argument on the opposing side. It still seems so odd to me that people would be harassed for being denied on an application, but since it seems they are, I'll say this with that in mind. People can be harassed about anything, any post on the forums, any message in the Discord, etc. At the end of the day, if someone wants to harass another person, they're going to find a reason to. If that reason happens to be a denied application, so be it. We have admins, forum moderators, discord moderators, etc. to handle harassment accordingly. You can't avoid people getting harassed entirely, all you can do is handle it when it gets to that point. Additionally, I'd hope that candidates applying for administrative positions don't instantaneously crack when being harassed and instead take the proper steps to stopping it, like reaching out to people in power. 

 

I was initially speaking on the idea of the general public being allowed to comment on these applications. However, that may be too far for some people. At the very least, the public should be able to view these applications. Even if they had the ability to post on them due to unfortunately not being able to restrict it, would it matter much? Do you guys think many people would abuse it and post on the applications and run the risk of eventually being moderated heavily? Forum moderators can more than handle the workload of needing to oversee applications, but that shouldn't even be apart of the discussion. (not sure why that was a point tbh) The goal shouldn't be to give moderators more work, it should be to increase transparency in a very relevant area where it's lacking.  And I also don't think it should be unacceptable for players to privately message the people in charge if they're concerned about an applicant. There should also be penalties for harassing admins who have voted on the application though.

 

I really don't think it's a big deal to at least try it out. (again, apparently) If harassment becomes a widespread issue that moderators and admins cannot control and it's negatively affecting the applicants in a significant way, then you can always reverse the decision. I don't think using trial and error in this instance is a bad thing. You could even test the waters by simply making accepted and denied applications public first, though it sort of ruins the purpose. But at least that way you can somewhat assess whether or not there's any issues with people being able to see them once they're done, which might give you a pretty good idea as to whether or not there'll be an issue if they can see them while they're still being decided on.

[Amelie 434 / 7,376]

29 minutes ago, JuicyBenny said:

There IS already a giant gap between the regular players and higher ups. There IS already a massive issue when it comes to proper communication. However, this is not that effect. Its another whole conversation itself that portion

You're right it wont stop people harassing others. but its going to stop part of it. It gets rid of another avenue for people to use. Which is a positive. Less harassment = good. i think there's many steps GFL can take to prevent more of that, but the argument of "they arent going to do it less" is false. cause if this is something. that causes more cases of it. if this creates MORE for people to use as ammo in hate fulled tyrants. Then yes, it no longer being public makes it happen less. less ammo means less amount of times you can fire. Sure they can get more ammo from other places maybe. But its less easy now. They cant use this avenue now.

I didn’t meant it in the sense that it will decrease the amount of toxicity, because it won’t. Toxic people will do it in many different ways. Because they adapt. Such as chat filters. You ban the word “retard”, but it won’t stop people from saying rtard to get around it. If these people can’t handle a little bit of harassment, maybe it isn’t the job for them. After all, this is the internet. And since there are rules against toxicity, it should be taken care of no problem. I see no issue in “causing more toxicity” because I truly believe the level of toxicity that inhibits GFL stays at a constant rate. Because there will always be new people who don’t listen to the rules, or people that don’t listen to rules at all to begin with. Transparency is all we have to keep the higher ups pressured with responsibility. Because in the end, GFL deciding not to do anything about the inactive mod team for months is still making a decision. And that decision is not in favor of people out of power.

[Amelie 434 / 7,376]

42 minutes ago, Dominic said:

I've expressed a lot of my thoughts in the staff Discord on this topic already, but I'm going to do it more formally here. I find it very odd that applications aren't public in the slightest.

 

This isn't a situation where transparency is being requested where it isn't due. These decisions directly affect the general population. Someone applying for admin on a server will now be administrating that server if accepted and overseeing those players. Those players have valuable input on that player. They can oftentimes accurately comment on that player's character, attitude, etc. The most valuable part of their input is that they may see how the candidate acts when admins aren't online. I think it's fair for the same to be said about Discord moderators, and maybe forum moderators, but I'm more iffy on the latter. However, the general public wouldn't really have much valuable input on people applying for positions like GFX or Developer, nor would they be affected by them pretty much at all. I think it's fair to not want to make these public. On the other hand, it allows the public to hold team leaders accountable. Applications shouldn't be sitting there for months on end without any sort of explanation, nor should people be accepted without valid reasoning / qualifications.

 

Harassment and toxicity seems to be the most prominent argument on the opposing side. It still seems so odd to me that people would be harassed for being denied on an application, but since it seems they are, I'll say this with that in mind. People can be harassed about anything, any post on the forums, any message in the Discord, etc. At the end of the day, if someone wants to harass another person, they're going to find a reason to. If that reason happens to be a denied application, so be it. We have admins, forum moderators, discord moderators, etc. to handle harassment accordingly. You can't avoid people getting harassed entirely, all you can do is handle it when it gets to that point. Additionally, I'd hope that candidates applying for administrative positions don't instantaneously crack when being harassed and instead take the proper steps to stopping it, like reaching out to people in power. 

 

I was initially speaking on the idea of the general public being allowed to comment on these applications. However, that may be too far for some people. At the very least, the public should be able to view these applications. Even if they had the ability to post on them due to unfortunately not being able to restrict it, would it matter much? Do you guys think many people would abuse it and post on the applications and run the risk of eventually being moderated heavily? Forum moderators can more than handle the workload of needing to oversee applications, but that shouldn't even be apart of the discussion. (not sure why that was a point tbh) The goal shouldn't be to give moderators more work, it should be to increase transparency in a very relevant area where it's lacking.  And I also don't think it should be unacceptable for players to privately message the people in charge if they're concerned about an applicant. There should also be penalties for harassing admins who have voted on the application though.

 

I really don't think it's a big deal to at least try it out. (again, apparently) If harassment becomes a widespread issue that moderators and admins cannot control and it's negatively affecting the applicants in a significant way, then you can always reverse the decision. I don't think using trial and error in this instance is a bad thing. You could even test the waters by simply making accepted and denied applications public first, though it sort of ruins the purpose. But at least that way you can somewhat assess whether or not there's any issues with people being able to see them once they're done, which might give you a pretty good idea as to whether or not there'll be an issue if they can see them while they're still being decided on.

You said exactly how I’m feeling much, much better. I’m all for this trial period. Those who oppose making applications transparent, would you be willing to try the trial period?

[Rhysin_ 540 / 13,177]

5 minutes ago, Amelie said:

You said exactly how I’m feeling much, much better. I’m all for this trial period. Those who oppose making applications transparent, would you be willing to try the trial period?

Though I still don't agree with the idea in the slightest, seeing it in action might change my mind. I'd be okay with a short trial period. though it is still up to those higher up

Edited December 24, 2020 by BlazingArson

[Male_08 403 / 0]

3 pages wtf

[Joshy 4,364 / 44,945]

Weren't applications already visible just a few weeks ago?  I'm confused about the trial period.

[Amelie 434 / 7,376]

3 minutes ago, Joshy said:

Weren't applications already visible just a few weeks ago?  I'm confused about the trial period.

I believe you can see them now because you are forum mod, Joshy.