the issue in brawl v2

Demote drumpf!!

 

Ahh that’s understandable, he is currently away for the month I believe, he made an inactivity report a while ago. Otherwise I think he’s extremely dedicated/mature and can handle managing HG.

 

Are you agreeing or trying to argue against what I said...? Obviously Cuddled doesn't apply to my comment because I said less than 3month abscenses

 

What if you want to remain a staff member afterwards though...? If there was a personal reason to be inactive for an overly extended time would you not just notify the other staff and do your business instead of resigning and reapplying afterwards?

Obviously there has to be some leniency there, especially for something serious enough to warrant a long break.

 

I'm not going to speak for any of the other staff on this list -- only myself. Now, I'm not going to deny the fact that my inactivity has increased over time. Go back a year ago, and every minute of my free time was spent on here. With getting a job, and school getting tougher, my available time decreases. Now I know what you're gonna say, "Well then just resign!". I've put forth so much effort into getting where I am, and stuck with it for over 2 years, I really don't want to lose all I've worked for, especially because I still do exist on Brawl... Now for the TeamSpeak. This is kind of controversial because although I'm on TS a lot in AFK or in a private channel, 9/10 of the staff don't even use TS. Almost everyone uses either Skype or Discord nowadays. Furthermore, if I have the "AFK" mode enabled, of course I'm not going to reply... Otherwise, I do my best to, and quite often help people out on TS. Another problem about answering people on TS though is that it's the same people with a "problem" that I either can't do anything about, or they're just trying to cause problems.

 

Umm there's something called reapplying? As long as you haven't ****ed up since you resigned, (if it's due to irl issues I doubt you'd have activity, then that's not a worry. Also it's no excuse for people to go inactive for months without saying **** to anybody. And when they get on, (normally after months of inactivity, they act normal but don't stay on long, then they're gone for another few months.

 

Very rarely do people who resign end up back with the position. Most people who do end up resigning regret it a day later, and don't end up back with their rank... v:

 

But normally resigning is because you don't like brawl or minecraft in general anymore, you have irl issues, etc. You'd need to think about it for a while before resigning so you're sure of your decision before you post it. If they take a legitimate break from brawl, come back and reapply, I don't see why that wouldn't be accepted.

 

Reread my post.

Maybe they just didn't say **** to the public, and just to the other staff members.

Read below.

 

Giving no reason to the public just shows that you don't feel like getting on. How are we supposed to know? Also, resigning and reapplying might be more of a hassle, but it doesn't annoy the community.

 

Why do we absolutely need to know....?

 

We don't, but we can't just assume they have irl issues. If they disappear without anyone knowing why, the community will assume they don't want to get on anymore. Where did I say we needed to know? I'm just saying going inactive without a trace for months on end is fine with me, it doesn't really matter, after a certain amount of time I still think they should be demoted unless they tell or have someone else tell us the reasons why so we can be more understanding. When they don't say anything we have no clue whether they're bored of the server or minecraft or if it's irl issues.

 

Sure, you didn't specifically say "We need to know", but what you said certainly didn't imply anything else. What do you mean we can't assume they have irl issues? Sure we can. You choose what you believe. Unless you believe Brawl head-staff have zero integrity, you should be able to deduce that there is probably a decent reason why someone hasn't be demoted for inactivity. I would even go as far as saying that it would be more logical to assume that there is a good enough reason not to demote them instead of them simply being gone because they don't want to play anymore. You're saying they should be demoted if they don't tell us? That's pretty ridiculous. It shouldn't be a requirement share their reason for inactivity with us, only to other staff. I would say the same to the rest of the people on this thread.

 

No, I'm not at all. They don't even have to say why they'll be away but saying they'll be away helps. I'm talking about people like There was one staff member who I used to talk to who got bored and went inactive and it took 5+ months to demote him. The reason brawl won't demote staff is because they need all the staff they can get, even if they get on once in a year. I never said they'd be demoted if they don't tell us, I said they should be demoted if they don't say anything to anybody and go inactive forever. I also have been good friends with many staff members, and a few got very demotivated and bored but didn't resign.

 

Wow I feel popular! I do realize I haven’t done my part in being active recently, just finished finals and starting work on my ACT. My activity should and will improve very soon! Thanks for the feed back though! My inactivity has become and issue brought to my attention and I will take action to fix it!

 

Just reread that sentence. The rest of your post isn't making any sense to me, so I left it out. This is the only thing I can actually comment on. Perhaps explain it in a different way or start making sense? I'm having trouble following.

 

I don't see a flaw in what he is trying to say. What @AmbitionZ_ is trying to say is that if a staff member goes inactive for a long time without any notice, they should receive some sort of punishment such as a demotion or warning.

 

I understood that part, I think I was just being a little too dramatic. They keep implying things and then when I address them they say that it isn't true and that's not what they meant. For example, AmbitionZ says "after a certain amount of time I still think they should be demoted unless they tell or have someone else tell us the reasons why so we can be more understanding.", which hardly means anything else than that they should be demoted if they don't tell us. Then Ambition says "I never said they'd be demoted if they don't tell us". Okay, they're saying that's not what they meant. I understand. What throws me off is the fact that right afterwards, in the same sentence, they completely go against what they said and again say essentially the same thing they did before. "I said they should be demoted if they don't say anything to anybody" has a pretty identical meaning to "after a certain amount of time I still think they should be demoted unless they tell or have someone else tell us the reasons why so we can be more understanding." At face value, there appears to be some contradiction here. However, I do believe there is some miscommunication going on. I'm having a hard time completely understanding what @AmbitionZ_ means.