Things you'd change?
View Single Post
May 22nd, 2013 (08:47 PM).
Join Date: Oct 2004
Quote originally posted by
Don't you guys have like separate mods and hstaff discussion forums or something?
View original post
There's a new forum for every staff level. They each have their own purpose. Mod forum is the Mod & Admin Lounge [pretty much the same thing as CQ&F in a weird way], and hstaff is the HQ (and admin is CMD).
So yeah, either you guys should snoop in on the conversation, or they can post one little thing saying "okay pay attention guys this is what's going down", and you wouldn't have to PM anyone, and it would mostly be a copy+paste job…and if you have a discussion forum for changes with all staff included but only hstaff could make the final decision, you guys have a bigger sample size, and with surveys, that's usually a good thing.
The argument that's being made by most hstaff is they don't want to add another step to the process, which I agree with. It takes so long to get things done in HQ it's absolutely ridiculous, and most of the time it's not because it takes time to hammar out the details. When something finally does make the vote, most of us don't want to add another 12 or 24 or 48 hours for the change to occur. So having a post that says "okay pay attention guys this is what's going down" just, as Audy said, adds another step to the process that's kind of unnecessary because changes are announced in the updates thread anyway.
and concerning the bureaucauiewfiawhi the long process that it takes to decide something, you should implement a Phoenix Wright type of system, where within x time if you don't come up with a "solution" the Top 3 or something (oldest? most posts? idk you guys figure it out) will automatically decide for everyone if to go on (ie it's
there, it just needs some more ironing out), or to just skip xyz (you guys are in gridlock over a detail or the whole idea). And I say the top three or w/e can override because (1) this is pretty much their forum at this point, and (2) I can trust that they can make the right decision if they haven't been kicked out of their positions…
I don't really understand this, but I don't think I'd agree to it.
Or if it's getting the votes, have all the staff be required to vote within x time (preferably 2/3 days, since that accounts for "required activity" and time zones) so that you don't have to "bump the thread with the votes" and everything.
And if it's because it's slow to get the staff to discuss, just require them to get on and
to contribute (I say try because I know there's some issues where I couldn't care less), because it's
and minor details like that.
It's the hstaff's job and responsibility to vote in HQ threads. That's our primary responsibility (in fact, I think it's actually our only
responsibility). So, as far as I'm concerned, all hstaff are required to vote. And I don't like putting a time limit on how soon someone should reply to a thread. I don't know the reason behind other people not replying to threads, mostly because I think I'm pretty spammy in HQ and I generally think it through via my posts rather than gathering my thoughts before posting, but I think most of the time, it's safe to assume that its a case of "Okay, I read this. I'm going to take some time to think about it." And, honestly, I'd rather them take that time to think it through than require them to reply immediately.
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Noah Ridgewood
Find all posts by Noah Ridgewood
Find threads started by Noah Ridgewood
Ignore Posts by Noah Ridgewood