Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2019 7:30:19 GMT
....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? Why do I have to defend Admins reasons for objecting? It's not my duty to come up with a list of reasons that they can henceforth use in their reasoning. But generally it would be not contributing to the server in a positive manner (being a nuisance, not reporting players, being too immature/up your own ass. I am not the one that should deem whether an objection is "valid" or not, because that's not even what I am calling for. I am saying that an Admin should be able to defend their position, if they were to be questioned on it - I have never said that an objection shouldn't count, as long as they have a reason going along with it. Whether that reason is good/bad doesn't matter, but we should definitely be able to question said reasoning, because that's the nature of what an application is. |
|
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 3, 2019 14:19:39 GMT
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? Why do I have to defend Admins reasons for objecting? It's not my duty to come up with a list of reasons that they can henceforth use in their reasoning. But generally it would be not contributing to the server in a positive manner (being a nuisance, not reporting players, being too immature/up your own ass. I am not the one that should deem whether an objection is "valid" or not, because that's not even what I am calling for. I am saying that an Admin should be able to defend their position, if they were to be questioned on it - I have never said that an objection shouldn't count, as long as they have a reason going along with it. Whether that reason is good/bad doesn't matter, but we should definitely be able to question said reasoning, because that's the nature of what an application is. That's not at all where I was going by asking you to provide an example. What I wanted to do is use your example to show you my point about challenging opinions. I'll use my own example instead:The point here is that Objector cannot win this discussion even if Voucher is actually wrong. Providing a screenshot actually weakened the objection because of Voucher's comments. I've seen this exact discussion a lot when admins did comment on others' votes in the past. You've actually seen both of these in the application that was recently moderated, ending 1 being Premintex and ending 2 being kai. |
|
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 3, 2019 14:51:52 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2019 16:11:31 GMT
When have I missed that? I have never enforced a non-existing rule. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2019 16:17:26 GMT
Why do I have to defend Admins reasons for objecting? It's not my duty to come up with a list of reasons that they can henceforth use in their reasoning. But generally it would be not contributing to the server in a positive manner (being a nuisance, not reporting players, being too immature/up your own ass. I am not the one that should deem whether an objection is "valid" or not, because that's not even what I am calling for. I am saying that an Admin should be able to defend their position, if they were to be questioned on it - I have never said that an objection shouldn't count, as long as they have a reason going along with it. Whether that reason is good/bad doesn't matter, but we should definitely be able to question said reasoning, because that's the nature of what an application is. That's not at all where I was going by asking you to provide an example. What I wanted to do is use your example to show you my point about challenging opinions. I'll use my own example instead:The point here is that Objector cannot win this discussion even if Voucher is actually wrong. Providing a screenshot actually weakened the objection because of Voucher's comments. I've seen this exact discussion a lot when admins did comment on others' votes in the past. You've actually seen both of these in the application that was recently moderated, ending 1 being Premintex and ending 2 being kai. Except you're putting this forth as though these are the only two scenarios that can occur. This could also occur A: I object because I don't think player C is fit for Admin B: Why do you think that A? A: Because reason X and therefore I think player C is not fit for Admin B: Well I think Y, so therefore I disagree with your stance X. Even though no opinions were changed in the matter it still gives the applicant some more insight into what they can improve on, and why A thinks they aren't fit for Admin. This is what I would call a constructive conversation for the applicant and everyone else involved instead of people not being able to even ask into why an Admin is objecting or asking them to elaborate. |
|
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 3, 2019 17:36:16 GMT
When have I missed that? I have never enforced a non-existing rule. I didn't claim you enforced it, I thought you were not aware of it because your last response to Mychael seems a lot less convincing to me if you consider that we operated for 7 years with all of these "negative effects" in place. That's not at all where I was going by asking you to provide an example. What I wanted to do is use your example to show you my point about challenging opinions. I'll use my own example instead:The point here is that Objector cannot win this discussion even if Voucher is actually wrong. Providing a screenshot actually weakened the objection because of Voucher's comments. I've seen this exact discussion a lot when admins did comment on others' votes in the past. You've actually seen both of these in the application that was recently moderated, ending 1 being Premintex and ending 2 being kai. Except you're putting this forth as though these are the only two scenarios that can occur. This could also occur A: I object because I don't think player C is fit for Admin B: Why do you think that A? A: Because reason X and therefore I think player C is not fit for Admin B: Well I think Y, so therefore I disagree with your stance X. Even though no opinions were changed in the matter it still gives the applicant some more insight into what they can improve on, and why A thinks they aren't fit for Admin. This is what I would call a constructive conversation for the applicant and everyone else involved instead of people not being able to even ask into why an Admin is objecting or asking them to elaborate. I didn't mean to imply that those are the only possibilities, but rather that you can force the conversation into one of those options. In your example, B can do that by asking A for proof of X because he has personally seen Y. What I'm actually trying to do is safeguard discussions on applications: you might have noticed that only a select few individuals on this forum have discussions like the one we're having right now. The others are always far less elaborate, if they comment at all. When I talked about getting someone on your ass, that is not how I experience it, but rather how I know a lot of those less elaborate people experience it, and it scares them away from commenting. If you don't believe that, just open a random suggestion with a poll and compare the amount of votes on the poll to the amount of unique people who have commented on the thread. Now open a random suggestion without a poll, and you will notice that the people who otherwise only vote on the poll have not chosen to comment, but instead to stay completely silent. That is something I want to avoid happening to applications at all costs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2019 17:57:07 GMT
When have I missed that? I have never enforced a non-existing rule. I didn't claim you enforced it, I thought you were not aware of it because your last response to Mychael seems a lot less convincing to me if you consider that we operated for 7 years with all of these "negative effects" in place. Except you're putting this forth as though these are the only two scenarios that can occur. This could also occur A: I object because I don't think player C is fit for Admin B: Why do you think that A? A: Because reason X and therefore I think player C is not fit for Admin B: Well I think Y, so therefore I disagree with your stance X. Even though no opinions were changed in the matter it still gives the applicant some more insight into what they can improve on, and why A thinks they aren't fit for Admin. This is what I would call a constructive conversation for the applicant and everyone else involved instead of people not being able to even ask into why an Admin is objecting or asking them to elaborate. I didn't mean to imply that those are the only possibilities, but rather that you can force the conversation into one of those options. In your example, B can do that by asking A for proof of X because he has personally seen Y. What I'm actually trying to do is safeguard discussions on applications: you might have noticed that only a select few individuals on this forum have discussions like the one we're having right now. The others are always far less elaborate, if they comment at all. When I talked about getting someone on your ass, that is not how I experience it, but rather how I know a lot of those less elaborate people experience it, and it scares them away from commenting. If you don't believe that, just open a random suggestion with a poll and compare the amount of votes on the poll to the amount of unique people who have commented on the thread. Now open a random suggestion without a poll, and you will notice that the people who otherwise only vote on the poll have not chosen to comment, but instead to stay completely silent. That is something I want to avoid happening to applications at all costs. And if we force the conversation into one of these two scenarios that you propose they will be moderated by our forum mods. I get what you're saying, but how would you mitigate that besides giving the option of commenting "object" without any constructive criticism of the applicant? If people feel attacked by another Admin because that Admin disagrees with their reason for objecting, then perhaps they should tell the Admin to quit being a bitch about it or complain to a forum mod/executive. |
|
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 3, 2019 18:19:11 GMT
I didn't claim you enforced it, I thought you were not aware of it because your last response to Mychael seems a lot less convincing to me if you consider that we operated for 7 years with all of these "negative effects" in place. I didn't mean to imply that those are the only possibilities, but rather that you can force the conversation into one of those options. In your example, B can do that by asking A for proof of X because he has personally seen Y. What I'm actually trying to do is safeguard discussions on applications: you might have noticed that only a select few individuals on this forum have discussions like the one we're having right now. The others are always far less elaborate, if they comment at all. When I talked about getting someone on your ass, that is not how I experience it, but rather how I know a lot of those less elaborate people experience it, and it scares them away from commenting. If you don't believe that, just open a random suggestion with a poll and compare the amount of votes on the poll to the amount of unique people who have commented on the thread. Now open a random suggestion without a poll, and you will notice that the people who otherwise only vote on the poll have not chosen to comment, but instead to stay completely silent. That is something I want to avoid happening to applications at all costs. And if we force the conversation into one of these two scenarios that you propose they will be moderated by our forum mods. I get what you're saying, but how would you mitigate that besides giving the option of commenting "object" without any constructive criticism of the applicant? If people feel attacked by another Admin because that Admin disagrees with their reason for objecting, then perhaps they should tell the Admin to quit being a bitch about it or complain to a forum mod/executive. I do not have a better solution than allowing objections without reason, I just prefer that to the suggestion in this thread, so that's something we can agree to disagree on. Note that that doesn't apply to objectively false information, as I've stated before. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 3, 2019 19:05:08 GMT
I don't have access to the posts you linked, but I was already fully aware of that. You seem to be more concerned with abolishing the rule that objections must be justified, but this suggestion isn't changing the current policy on that. Here's a compromise that I can put on the table. Objections must be justified, but also vouches must be justified. I think this is the most fair way to go about it, and it's either this or you're going to have those oh-so-horrible discussions on objection reasons in a few applications. |
|
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 3, 2019 19:14:38 GMT
I don't have access to the posts you linked, but I was already fully aware of that. You seem to be more concerned with abolishing the rule that objections must be justified, but this suggestion isn't changing the current policy on that. Here's a compromise that I can put on the table. Objections must be justified, but also vouches must be justified. I think this is the most fair way to go about it, and it's either this or you're going to have those oh-so-horrible discussions on objection reasons in a few applications. Mychael brought up that topic, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that that is my main concern. I think what you suggest should already have been in place because the current policy results in a bias towards vouches. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 3, 2019 19:16:04 GMT
I don't have access to the posts you linked, but I was already fully aware of that. You seem to be more concerned with abolishing the rule that objections must be justified, but this suggestion isn't changing the current policy on that. Here's a compromise that I can put on the table. Objections must be justified, but also vouches must be justified. I think this is the most fair way to go about it, and it's either this or you're going to have those oh-so-horrible discussions on objection reasons in a few applications. Mychael brought up that topic, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that that is my main concern. I think what you suggest should already have been in place because the current policy results in a bias towards vouches. So can we clear this up by making the required justification also apply to vouches? |
|
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 3, 2019 19:40:21 GMT
Mychael brought up that topic, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that that is my main concern. I think what you suggest should already have been in place because the current policy results in a bias towards vouches. So can we clear this up by making the required justification also apply to vouches? I guess so. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 3, 2019 19:47:11 GMT
So can we clear this up by making the required justification also apply to vouches? I guess so. The deed is done. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 12:44:33 GMT
When will you lock the poll? |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 4, 2019 19:46:06 GMT
When will you lock the poll? I don't know. I unintentionally set it to when it locks and there's no way to edit that, so I'll wait until it reaches the acceptable amount of respondents which is in the ballpark of 40. |
|
