|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 1, 2019 20:51:31 GMT
The current admin application response instructions are very outdated. They were made for an old Total Freedom back years ago which no longer makes sense in the current system we have in place. They are not enforced a lot of the time, and when they are it appears very selective. There are so many micro-provisions of this policy that just simply aren't cared about, both when an admin makes a vote and when the votes are being reviewed.
Let's say you have a scenario where somebody is applying for admin and an admin objects for a reason which is objectively incorrect. Under the current policy, an admin can't respond to that reason. Instead, they are forced to either flag it (what?), PM the admin (won't accomplish anything, and nobody does that), break the rule (common and not even enforced quite a lot of the time, when enforced it starts a censorship shit storm), or ignore it (allowing disinformation to ruin the applicant's reputation). You have four ways here, and absolutely none of them will result in anything good happening. You can break the rule and correct the disinformation, but at the cost of a forum admin deleting your post or other admins policy-trolling by bringing the provision up and causing an even bigger shit storm which derails the application.
So basically, you're pretty much fucked if an admin objects for an invalid reason. Correcting the information is a policy violation, and nobody is going to go through and fact check every objection, all votes are tallied up regardless of input.
But what if the applicant himself wants to correct the information? Well, that's tricky. I recall there being a provision of the policy where the applicant could respond to an objection he considered incorrect 'only once', however that must have been removed or on a different thread. So there's a good chance of there being a shit storm if the applicant simply responds to any post to defend himself, and when they do they will probably just get more objections for reason of them "commenting on their application" regardless of what point they were making.
I see no valid reason why the applicant should be unable to comment on his application or respond to objections that they find invalid. People are now allowed to comment on permban requests, why shouldn't they be able to respond to criticism?
Well, sorry applicants, there's always the option of grabbing a permanent marker and plastering your response on the side of a bathroom stall.
There are several other scenarios I could go over here given the amount of micro-provisions in this response thread, but there are too many variables and odds going into literally any scenario happening here because there's always the chance of nobody caring or the person tallying up the votes not caring which is pretty much inevitable because who actually references the response instructions except for when it's for their own gain.
Here's a simpler response instructions policy that I have in mind:
1. When admins respond to application responses, there are only four valid responses:
- Vouch (with justification, without justification will be counted as neutral) - Object (with justification, without justification will be counted as neutral) - Neutral - Ignoring the application
2. Objection justifications should be somewhat professional. They should be as detailed as possible so that the applicant can learn how they can improve. A response like "object, not admin material" or "object, apply again later" doesn't help the applicant improve themselves. Personal attacks are not allowed. Similarly, vouches should be justified to let other admins know why an applicant would be a good admin.
3. Admins of all ranks can vote on any applications that they can view, but the vote of a Senior Admin for instance may be stronger than a Telnet Admin vote on a senior admin application.
4. Non-admins are allowed to comment on applications, but not vote. Their comments must be related to the application, and they cannot comment if they already have an application on file. The applicant is allowed to respond to objections or make other clarifications as they see necessary, but spam or begging for vouches may be flagged.
5. There should be no objections on reinstatements as a result of inactivity unless the applicant is currently breaking the conduct rules. For reinstatements as a result of a suspension, don't vote based on what they did in the past to be suspended. Admins are allowed to vouch for a reinstatement of suspended admins to a lower level such as Super Admin.
6. Avoid power-posting on applications by repeatedly stating rule corrections for the applicant (such as them not being qualified to apply), just wait for it to be automatically denied. You can PM the applicant if necessary or flag posts.
7. If you are applying for an admin promotion, do not vote/comment on other applications for the same position.
8. The Executive Admin Officer when counting the votes must make sure the votes follow these application response instructions. If necessary, PM the admin to allow them a second chance to vote if their first vote was invalid (ex. unjustified objection).
I will take further modifications to this (such as non-admins being able to vote on applications) if people want me to modify this, but otherwise they should be done in a separate suggestion. This simplifies the response instructions and gets rid of the excessive, contradicting provisions which only ever cause further application derailing and shutting down of important conversation. Please note that the justification requirement for objections is not new, that was already in place but not enforced for some reason.
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Aug 1, 2019 22:30:29 GMT
I am fine with applying measures to prevent wrong information from affecting applications, but people correcting objectively wrong information has never been a big problem. The cause of derailed conversations on applications is people "correcting" others' opinions because they disagree with the reasoning provided. This is also why objections without reason are so popular (or were, I guess): if you do provide a reason, you'll instantly get someone on your ass explaining why your opinion is stupid. You can do that with suggestions because suggestions are just a bunch of words with an objective meaning. Human interactions are not objective, and it is nearly impossible to put your exact experience on paper, but the person on your ass only rants about what you did put on paper.
In other words, I don't believe allowing admins to challenge another admin's opinion on an applicant can lead to a fruitful discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 23:16:51 GMT
I vouch for a yes, not only has this affected me, but it has affected many other applications. I've looked through some of them and the reasonable (the applications with all requirements met) are usually just filled with "object"s with no valid reason.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 1, 2019 23:17:59 GMT
I am fine with applying measures to prevent wrong information from affecting applications, but people correcting objectively wrong information has never been a big problem. The cause of derailed conversations on applications is people "correcting" others' opinions because they disagree with the reasoning provided. This is also why objections without reason are so popular (or were, I guess): if you do provide a reason, you'll instantly get someone on your ass explaining why your opinion is stupid. You can do that with suggestions because suggestions are just a bunch of words with an objective meaning. Human interactions are not objective, and it is nearly impossible to put your exact experience on paper, but the person on your ass only rants about what you did put on paper. In other words, I don't believe allowing admins to challenge another admin's opinion on an applicant can lead to a fruitful discussion. I think it's either you go 100% in one direction, or 100% in the other. If you think that the solution is to just simply not have discussions on admin applications, then we should abolish it entirely and instead set up a poll elsewhere for admin applications. But that won't work, so we should instead just allow conversation to occur on admin applications naturally instead of trying to micromanage them. What's actually preventing a fruitful discussion from occurring is the rule which only results in an important discussion about the applicant transforming into a discussion about the rules, and then what has happened where after the posts get removed you have people challenging the moderation and causing an even bigger shit storm, inFAmas comes to mind there. I will never support trying to censor conversation, and admins/applicants need to be able to voice their opinions and call out false information as they see necessary.
|
|
|
Post by mychaeljkmax on Aug 1, 2019 23:19:36 GMT
I vouch for a yes, not only has this affected me, but it has affected many other applications. I've looked through some of them and the reasonable (the applications with all requirements met) are usually just filled with "object"s with no valid reason. I think we should still permit objections with no reasoning, and we should respect an admin’s wishes if they wish not to disclose any information. Objections with no reasoning should just hold less weightage (although right now they are neutral).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2019 23:28:56 GMT
if they wish not to disclose any information. When an applicant tries to become an admin, and makes an application for the first time. They wanna see how a first application goes so they can use that to advance. If there's a bunch of objects and there's no real reason, it will get confusing and won't know what to do. I slightly agree with short little sentences on stuff like "Object, I don't think you're fit for admin because I don't see you helping, may change in the future" would be WAAAY better than just "object". What I am trying to say is that if they wish to not disclose information, I don't think it benefits for really anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 1, 2019 23:30:44 GMT
I vouch for a yes, not only has this affected me, but it has affected many other applications. I've looked through some of them and the reasonable (the applications with all requirements met) are usually just filled with "object"s with no valid reason. I think we should still permit objections with no reasoning, and we should respect an admin’s wishes if they wish not to disclose any information. Objections with no reasoning should just hold less weightage (although right now they are neutral). I don't want people to vote on this suggestion based on their personal opinion of whether objections should have to be justified or not, because that has nothing to do with this suggestion. This suggestion does not change that, although it does make it more clear since the current response instructions contradicts itself on this which is yet another problem with it.
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Aug 1, 2019 23:38:13 GMT
I am fine with applying measures to prevent wrong information from affecting applications, but people correcting objectively wrong information has never been a big problem. The cause of derailed conversations on applications is people "correcting" others' opinions because they disagree with the reasoning provided. This is also why objections without reason are so popular (or were, I guess): if you do provide a reason, you'll instantly get someone on your ass explaining why your opinion is stupid. You can do that with suggestions because suggestions are just a bunch of words with an objective meaning. Human interactions are not objective, and it is nearly impossible to put your exact experience on paper, but the person on your ass only rants about what you did put on paper. In other words, I don't believe allowing admins to challenge another admin's opinion on an applicant can lead to a fruitful discussion. I think it's either you go 100% in one direction, or 100% in the other. If you think that the solution is to just simply not have discussions on admin applications, then we should abolish it entirely and instead set up a poll elsewhere for admin applications. But that won't work, so we should instead just allow conversation to occur on admin applications naturally instead of trying to micromanage them. What's actually preventing a fruitful discussion from occurring is the rule which only results in an important discussion about the applicant transforming into a discussion about the rules, and then what has happened where after the posts get removed you have people challenging the moderation and causing an even bigger shit storm, inFAmas comes to mind there. I will never support trying to censor conversation, and admins/applicants need to be able to voice their opinions and call out false information as they see necessary. I'm not convinced that removing the rules will prevent derailing, because a big part of those derailed discussions are meta comments like this one, which are not useful to the applicant but also not entirely off-topic:
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 1, 2019 23:44:41 GMT
I think it's either you go 100% in one direction, or 100% in the other. If you think that the solution is to just simply not have discussions on admin applications, then we should abolish it entirely and instead set up a poll elsewhere for admin applications. But that won't work, so we should instead just allow conversation to occur on admin applications naturally instead of trying to micromanage them. What's actually preventing a fruitful discussion from occurring is the rule which only results in an important discussion about the applicant transforming into a discussion about the rules, and then what has happened where after the posts get removed you have people challenging the moderation and causing an even bigger shit storm, inFAmas comes to mind there. I will never support trying to censor conversation, and admins/applicants need to be able to voice their opinions and call out false information as they see necessary. I'm not convinced that removing the rules will prevent derailing, because a big part of those derailed discussions are meta comments like this one, which are not useful to the applicant but also not entirely off-topic: I wouldn't call that derailing, I would call that devolving. Actual derailing is where a productive, albeit meta, conversation like that turns into a conversation about rules on admin response instructions and like in other instances moderation. I honestly don't see the issue in a meta conversation occurring in an admin application as long as it isn't entirely off topic, and you are incorrect about it not being useful given that specific details were not provided until pressed on it, whereas if the rules were followed that would not have happened at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 0:23:16 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 20:59:11 GMT
I am fine with applying measures to prevent wrong information from affecting applications, but people correcting objectively wrong information has never been a big problem. The cause of derailed conversations on applications is people "correcting" others' opinions because they disagree with the reasoning provided. This is also why objections without reason are so popular (or were, I guess): if you do provide a reason, you'll instantly get someone on your ass explaining why your opinion is stupid. You can do that with suggestions because suggestions are just a bunch of words with an objective meaning. Human interactions are not objective, and it is nearly impossible to put your exact experience on paper, but the person on your ass only rants about what you did put on paper. In other words, I don't believe allowing admins to challenge another admin's opinion on an applicant can lead to a fruitful discussion. ....And this is one of the reasons why we have "Forum Moderators" - to make sure the conversation is "fruitful". "The cause of derailed conversations on applications is people "correcting" others' opinions because they disagree with the reasoning provided." Except that is not at all what happens - if a person is asking for further explaination behind the reasoning of an objection that should not be counted as them trying to "correct" their opinion of the applicant. In the thread wherein I asked people to explain their stance I did so because I knew that they couldn't, so I was merely challenging their stance, because it was very apparent that a majority of the people (in my eyes) couldn't come with a sufficient reason for their objection other than A) disliking the applicant for reasons unrelated to adminstrating or B) acting like lemmings and following the herd. This is also why I think that an objection supplied with "You are not Admin material" or something similar should also be counted as a neutral vote, because that does not help the applicant improve in the slighest, and it is also such an easy way to evade the policy that already makes objections with no reasoning count as a neutral vote. If you can't handle being "attacked", as you put it, over your objection, then perhaps you shouldn't object, because You clearly cannot give a proper reasoning for your opinion of the applicant. Applications are supposed to be a discussion not a simple poll.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2019 21:01:40 GMT
I vouch for a yes, not only has this affected me, but it has affected many other applications. I've looked through some of them and the reasonable (the applications with all requirements met) are usually just filled with "object"s with no valid reason. I think we should still permit objections with no reasoning, and we should respect an admin’s wishes if they wish not to disclose any information. Objections with no reasoning should just hold less weightage (although right now they are neutral). Why should people have their vote count if they can't even justify their position when challenged? And if we were to implement your proposal, how would we weigh objections with no reasoning? Would they count as 1/4 of an objection with a reasoninging? What if objection A has a 10 word reasoning whereas another has a 2 page essay? Should the 2 page essay not count for more according to your proposal?
|
|
|
Post by mychaeljkmax on Aug 2, 2019 21:27:11 GMT
I think we should still permit objections with no reasoning, and we should respect an admin’s wishes if they wish not to disclose any information. Objections with no reasoning should just hold less weightage (although right now they are neutral). Why should people have their vote count if they can't even justify their position when challenged? And if we were to implement your proposal, how would we weigh objections with no reasoning? Would they count as 1/4 of an objection with a reasoninging? What if objection A has a 10 word reasoning whereas another has a 2 page essay? Should the 2 page essay not count for more according to your proposal? I think that if people don’t wish to justify their vote, it should still count, but it should be taken less into consideration. I think it’s a good idea to justify votes, but I don’t think we should go as far as to make it a requirement. For example, in some particular situations, admins may prefer to object to an application anonymously to avoid blackmail or a heated debate. There are many cases where this has occurred in the past, especially on reinstatement applications for misconduct. If we were to get technical and start using numbers, I’d say it would make the most sense to give a vote without justification half the weight as a vote with justification. Objections with no reasoning were actually permitted in the old policy, and there wasn’t any true technical difference, they were just generally less considered. The bottom line is, I think we should respect an admin’s right to privacy if they truly don’t wish to elaborate. An objection is an objection and a vouch is a vouch; if the only thing we can pull from a particular admin’s vote is “I don’t want this person to be promoted” or vice versa, that’s something, and it should still count, in my view.
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Aug 2, 2019 22:45:21 GMT
I am fine with applying measures to prevent wrong information from affecting applications, but people correcting objectively wrong information has never been a big problem. The cause of derailed conversations on applications is people "correcting" others' opinions because they disagree with the reasoning provided. This is also why objections without reason are so popular (or were, I guess): if you do provide a reason, you'll instantly get someone on your ass explaining why your opinion is stupid. You can do that with suggestions because suggestions are just a bunch of words with an objective meaning. Human interactions are not objective, and it is nearly impossible to put your exact experience on paper, but the person on your ass only rants about what you did put on paper. In other words, I don't believe allowing admins to challenge another admin's opinion on an applicant can lead to a fruitful discussion. ....And this is one of the reasons why we have "Forum Moderators" - to make sure the conversation is "fruitful". "The cause of derailed conversations on applications is people "correcting" others' opinions because they disagree with the reasoning provided." Except that is not at all what happens - if a person is asking for further explaination behind the reasoning of an objection that should not be counted as them trying to "correct" their opinion of the applicant. In the thread wherein I asked people to explain their stance I did so because I knew that they couldn't, so I was merely challenging their stance, because it was very apparent that a majority of the people (in my eyes) couldn't come with a sufficient reason for their objection other than A) disliking the applicant for reasons unrelated to adminstrating or B) acting like lemmings and following the herd. This is also why I think that an objection supplied with "You are not Admin material" or something similar should also be counted as a neutral vote, because that does not help the applicant improve in the slighest, and it is also such an easy way to evade the policy that already makes objections with no reasoning count as a neutral vote. If you can't handle being "attacked", as you put it, over your objection, then perhaps you shouldn't object, because You clearly cannot give a proper reasoning for your opinion of the applicant. Applications are supposed to be a discussion not a simple poll. Can you give me an example of something you would consider a valid objection reason if the applicant has not blatantly violated the rules before?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2019 7:28:38 GMT
Why should people have their vote count if they can't even justify their position when challenged? And if we were to implement your proposal, how would we weigh objections with no reasoning? Would they count as 1/4 of an objection with a reasoninging? What if objection A has a 10 word reasoning whereas another has a 2 page essay? Should the 2 page essay not count for more according to your proposal? I think that if people don’t wish to justify their vote, it should still count, but it should be taken less into consideration. I think it’s a good idea to justify votes, but I don’t think we should go as far as to make it a requirement. For example, in some particular situations, admins may prefer to object to an application anonymously to avoid blackmail or a heated debate. There are many cases where this has occurred in the past, especially on reinstatement applications for misconduct. If we were to get technical and start using numbers, I’d say it would make the most sense to give a vote without justification half the weight as a vote with justification. Objections with no reasoning were actually permitted in the old policy, and there wasn’t any true technical difference, they were just generally less considered. The bottom line is, I think we should respect an admin’s right to privacy if they truly don’t wish to elaborate. An objection is an objection and a vouch is a vouch; if the only thing we can pull from a particular admin’s vote is “I don’t want this person to be promoted” or vice versa, that’s something, and it should still count, in my view. If you are going to remove the requirement for an objection to be coupled together with a reason, then that would open the doors for a list of negative effects. The first negative would be that the applicant would have no way to improve, because they don't get any feedback from the Admin's vote. Another would be that we will occasionally be met with a situation wherein an Admin is objecting for some trivial matter that is completely unrelated to adminstrating on Total Freedom. This already occurs, but at least now their vote either doesn't count (because they only comment "object") or they give a reason for their objection, but even now we can't question their reasoning, because that's against the rules (as I discovered lol). If you can't even defend your own position when challenged, then you shouldn't be able to have a vote in the matter, because that could be an easy indicator of Admin abuse. Tell me: how is blackmail related to any of this? Can you give me an instance where an Admin has been blackmailed because of their vote? The thing that happened recently on an Admin app was that I began to question every single vote that I deemed as having a faulty/bad reasoning. I also mentioned that comments that only say "object" don't count as a vote. Also tell me why an Admin has a "right to privacy" in regards to voting? They shouldn't be able to justify their beliefs in a PUBLIC FORUM? This has nothing to do with privacy: only Admins wanting to be able to lazily object.
|
|