[Rejected] CA Changes

[Phoenix_]

As I've never been any form of staff before, I doubt my opinion here carries really any weight, but I'll put my two cents in on this. As we have 11 CAs right now, I think to split CA into SR and CA would be pretty beneficial for the community. There are CAs that generally don't show a ton of activity on the forums and TeamSpeak, and there's nothing wrong with that. They prefer to be in servers more and just play the game and moderate there. I think splitting CA into two would allow those who want to focus on the servers be able to thrive in their role and allow people who are more forum heavy to be able to moderate the forums more.

 

If we brought back SR, I think the core responsibilities would be of course to be active in the servers, especially the one you are representing and bring back the general consensus of what that player base wants for the future of the server. There are plenty of regular players on all the servers who don't frequent the forums, and their voices aren't heard. If we brought SR back, I think their core focus would be on the server, but it would also prove beneficial if they had to do a "report" every so often giving updates on things going right and wrong in the servers both from an objective point of view, and how the overall player base of that server feels things are going. Then it would go to the ATs to figure out what needs changing and doesn't.

 

It wouldn't hurt to keep CA as "Community Advisor" because I feel if their responsibility was mainly to moderate and interact on the forum, they would truly be a community advisor. Of course, this would be a BIG step, but the CAs would need to coordinate with the IAs and BDs to see a good balance of what would be handled by the CAs and what would be handled by the IAs+.

 

I think it would be good to assign SRs to the server they most prefer, and CAs would remain unassigned, still being able to play whatever server, but focus on community sided issues that need resolving at the lower level.

 

As I said, I've never held any sort of staff position, so this long, ranting statement probably carries little/no weight, but I feel like I should put out my opinion nonetheless.

 

Edit: I also don't see an issue with people who want to hold both an SR and CA position. If they intend on one day being a higher-up, holding a position of both CA and SR may prove helpful if they want to be an AT/IA.

[delirium]

There's always plenty to do in these ranks its all about the personnelle you have in them. It's a difference between "I'm fine where im at and will do the bare minimum to maintain my rank" and "I actually care about doing more for this community let me make 'xyz' discussion thread or experiment with 'xyz' plugin"

 

Just because historically the majority of the members in these ranks haven't given a fuck doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with the ranks. I think the pressure should be on the BD/IA team to determine and remove members at these ranks who haven't attempted to do anything other than the bare minimum over lets say a 3-5 month period.

 

As an example: I'm pretty sure you remember the situations that led to moving CA to a non-primary rank after the rank shift. If you have a group of people who are not performing the 'basic' functions of a rank (discussion) the blame should not fall to the rank but instead to the group of people that you have within that rank. You can see this in action with our decision to make CA/SR necessary for AT after a month or two of having CA be extra useless.

[Gentoo]

bump

 

Noticed this wasn't marked as reviewing, so I assume there's room for more people to share their opinions on this.

[Prez]

There's always plenty to do in these ranks its all about the personnelle you have in them. It's a difference between "I'm fine where im at and will do the bare minimum to maintain my rank" and "I actually care about doing more for this community let me make 'xyz' discussion thread or experiment with 'xyz' plugin"

 

Just because historically the majority of the members in these ranks haven't given a fuck doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with the ranks. I think the pressure should be on the BD/IA team to determine and remove members at these ranks who haven't attempted to do anything other than the bare minimum over lets say a 3-5 month period.

 

As an example: I'm pretty sure you remember the situations that led to moving CA to a non-primary rank after the rank shift. If you have a group of people who are not performing the 'basic' functions of a rank (discussion) the blame should not fall to the rank but instead to the group of people that you have within that rank. You can see this in action with our decision to make CA/SR necessary for AT after a month or two of having CA be extra useless.

 

I agree with your example, however I don't see the forum aspect as having large enough a scope to deserve its own designation (below what IA does). Yes you can have people that will push and do "more", but there will come a point where someone will look to do much more and essentially cross their dotted-line. At that point, higher ups will say "this isn't in the role's responsibilities" and then a discussion will be had about whether the scope needs to be increased or the person promoted out of the rank. I suppose that in itself is a good path to promotion... but at that point you should question whether the CA role is even worth having if "good" candidates outgrow it quickly. If that's the case, then they should be pushed up to IA right away, unless you want to treat the CA rank as IA junior. If you want to do that, then cool - that's just how it needs to be communicated.