Staff Applications

I don't think that he is talking about you :c

 

even if he isn't, I'm still confused on what to do... It might be me. I've been getting frustrated lately.

 

I still liked @Prouddyyy 's idea best:

 

I'm definitely not a fan of lifetime ranks being able to vote. To be honest, lifetime rankers are on the whole less mature than people with no ranks. Plus, this would be essentially buying your way into this. The idea behind the staff response system is that only the most mature and knowledgeable can respond to applications, and people with lifetime ranks do not necessarily fit that requirement.

 

I wasn't talking about you at all
I was referring to some ex-staff who became very immature and started to flame quite a bit.
Anywhooo... my response was more or less intended to state that I feel staff applications should be responded to by the very people who ultimately have a say in the matter, and at the time that is just the current staff team.

 

I completely agree with the fact that community response is important, and I will not get into the matter of staff who don't deserve it. No matter how the staff system is set up, there will always be ways where members can get this position when they don't deserve it. And even some member have good intentions at the beginning, but they start to abuse their privileges. As for the ex-staff replying to applications, I didn't intend to be so broad with my generalization. There are so many ex-staff, and among them are some "bad eggs." There are obviously some ex-staff who could very well handle the privilege of posting on staff apps, but obviously, if certain ex-staff were given the privilege, some people would complain. As for community response, again, people would complain if there were select people with privileges, and there is no total group that has only mature members, (Sometimes including the staff team :/ )
If a member has a truly constructive response, they can message the applicant, or post on their profile.

 

The reasons people write on your profile are likely representative of the majority of the legitimate reasons for their votes. If people vote no because they don't like you, the staff in charge of accepting applicants don't pay attention to them. I try to write on the profiles of people who apply, so they know what to improve on, but I obviously can't write to them every single time anyone makes an application. If the staff that responded to the application have already covered the main points, I don't bother. Improve on what people say you need improving on, because anything nobody bothers to mention is probably really small/

 

Maybe they just don't know you very well and can't judge the bigger things. That entirely reasonable, from a judging point of view. Someone put in a position like mod should be seen as a good person at first, and the small things should be fairly positive. For most people, their first encounter with you is the application and your responses to feedback. If the application isn't enough for the person judging you to get to know you (as far as something like that can do that), then consider it not detailed enough.
I'm not going to get in an argument about why people vote no, but the fact is that for every applicant, there are people who vote no just because they feel like it. Compare your vote ratings with other accepted applicants to get an idea of what the community thinks of you in terms of being ready for mod, rather than comparing just positive to negative votes.
Plus, if you don't get feedback for why people are voting no, I'm pretty sure the staff manager will say what you need to work on, so just focus on that.

 

Media, Wiki and Build Team members can now reply to Staff Applications. We will monitor how this works out and revert this change if necessary.
Added,
Locked.