Demote Consistently Inactive Staff Faster

If this were the case, I wouldn't be a staff member anymore.

If real life reasons get in the way of being staff then that is fine as long as you know it is temporary. We can't just resign and re-apply if we have to leave for a few months - it would require us to go through the stage of trial JMod, passing a hack test (which has historically taken up to 6 months before to even get an opportunity to take it).

Not to mention, we're only allowed to resign once. If we resign twice, we're not allowed to return. When I took my GCSEs I knew I had to be inactive for about a month and a half but I also knew I could return, so I asked Cuddled if it was okay for me to be away for this long (and that, if not, I would have to resign). She said it's okay for me to stay on the staff team, both because there's no point in resigning if I could return and remain active again and because it's very rare of people to be allowed to resign twice and still return to the staff team afterwards.

Perhaps we should implement a system where staff who need to go inactive for an extended period of time have their ranks and perms taken away from them while they are inactive, but when they return they can immediately be put back into the position they were already in. Right now, the only alternative is to resign knowing you'll want to come back afterwards, which is not a great system to have.

The way I see it is this: what's the point in someone resigning if they know they'll be active again in 2 or 3 months time, and they know they'll want to come back?

We have; Lord_Roke is currently doing everything Cuddled was doing, with the help of some SMods denying the really bad applications.

 

If the community saw exactly how inactive an inactive staff member was, they likely wouldn't respond in the most professional manner (you know what I mean). If anything, this would demotivate staff from wanting to come back more than anything else.

 

If anything, we need to demote some of the more inactive staff now to set an example.

I know for a fact I could disappear almost completely in January and could come back and still have my staff rank, so it would take a long time of me being inactive for me to think that I should probably start being more active again if I wanted to keep my rank. If this wasn't the case, it'd be more of an incentive for me to get more active again, or for me to just resign due to my inactivity.

That is all theoretical btw I had 192 hours last month I'm not inactive I promise ;-;

 

would i be yelled at if i started naming off inactive staff that wherent demoted for at least 1.5 months
anyways trust me ive tried, its gonna b even slower w/o cuddle

 

This just isn't true though. The average community member looks at the very worst staff members to judge our staff team as a whole, meaning they look at the inactive staff members and use that to justify saying things like "staff need to get off their arses and actually respond to reports" and "Staff are just lazy asf"* to me - even though these claims are demonstrably nonsense.

Inactive staff members pollute the image that the staff team has as a whole, and even though this point of view is incredibly pessimistic, it's still the point of view that a lot of community members have and as such, we need to do something about it. After all, even though inactive staff aren't negatively impacting the community (other than how I described above), they likewise aren't positively impacting the community at all really.

*Actual quotes that people said to me, the very same day I banned 27 people, all of which were from reports

 

Sacrificing an hour a week of having an inactive staff member online in order to stop the staff team as a whole looking bad is a fair trade-off in my opinion.