Round 3 Part 2 - Team 1 (Team Fruity)

Congratulations! You are now part of the staff! Hypothetically, at least. For this task your group will act as the staff, and you must come together to make an important decision...the very same decision that the current staff is trying to make right now.

You must decide the next Cid's Knight. You will not be deciding between real members, but 5 candidate profiles that we will provide you. Each candidate has their strengths and weaknesses that would make them a good Knight.

Please discuss the merits of each candidate in this thread, and together come to a decision on who to promote, with a reason why they were chosen over the rest.

For the duration of this task please stay out of the other teams' threads. We will be watching you. Remember, everything you do is graded.

Here are your candidates:


Candidate 1 -

• Longtime member who has been around for many years.
• Well known and respected by most of the veterans, but has not had much interaction with most of the the newer members.
• Posts mainly in the general categories and Feedback.
• Has a smart unique personality and outlook that not many others have.
• Forum activity is currently moderate.

Candidate 2

• Joined within the last year but has become one of the top posters during that time.
• Well received and like by most of the newer members, but some of the oldbies will probably claim they've never heard of this person.
• Active poster in all forums, but mainly in General Chat.
• Friendly poster but has the tendency to spam and be immature at times.
• Forum activity level is very high

Candidate 3

• Has been an active member for 3 years.
• Posts a lot in the gaming forums but not much in the general forums.
• Is well known and well respected in the gaming forums for their helpfulness and advice.
• Calm and low-key demeanor. Hardly ever participates in forum 'events'.
• Forum activity level is very high in the Gaming forums, much less so in the General forums.

Candidate 4

• One of the top posters in General Chat for a number of years.
• Everyone's buddy. Has won numerous Ciddies in many different categories.
• Generally well liked by the community, but has had run-ins with the staff due to their non-serious, jokster nature.
• At one point claimed to be "anti-staff" but that position has since changed.
• Forum activity level is high in the General forums. Never visits the gaming forums.

Candidate 5

• Since joining EoFF two years ago, this person has dived right into the community and become an active poster throughout the forum.
• Is constantly posting ideas for new events and making interesting, interactive threads.
• Well liked by the community for their upbeat personality.
• Sensitive in nature, this poster shies away from confrontation and prefers to go with the flow.
• Activity level is not always constant. Periods of intense activity are sometimes followed by very low levels of posting.

You have 30 hours (Tomorrow 5pm Pacific time) to complete this task.

Well, the first thing I want to say is number 5 sounds like a great member but would probably be a pretty crappy moderator. He (I'm just gonna say he) would have trouble setting people straight when the need arises, and wouldn't even be here a lot of the time. (Though that didn't stop Kishi. xP)

I'll second what Roto said about Candidate 5. Candidate 5 sounds like an excellent candidate for some sort of site staff position, however. They seem like they'd be very comfortable there.

I think while Candidate 1 and 2 are very much polar opposites, they both could butt heads with our staff. They seem to be extremes on the Oldbie - Newbie scale. I think a neutral member would fare much better. Candidate 2 could interact better with ALL members, but Candidate 1 is much more grounded and seems to be more mature and intelligent. Candidate 2 might not be listened to by the oldbies, but Candidate 1 might be looked upon by the newer members as "Oh, that grumpy old guy! Don't listen to him!"

---

Candidate 3 sounds very responsible, and while they could end up becoming more social because of the CK power, but they might not know how to interact best as a CK. They might turn a blind eye to GC, which is probably one of the moderating hot spots.

They could be a wild card. Candidate 3 is a toughy because a lot of the most recent CKs are Candidate 3's, and while some have become social on GC and are keeping an eye on it while still posting in Gaming, some haven't been. Candidate 3 seems to be a type of person that could very well become an admin if they keep up the good work, however. They seem to fall in the calm, polite helpful but not the most social in the forum type that is often admined.

---

I don't really see any major weakness in Candidate 4, to be honest. All of their imperfections seem to be ones that can be easily fixed, rather than character flaws. They don't post in Gaming Forum. But that's something that is very easily fixed.

They seem to have been a bit silly and spammish as a younger member, but have matured over the years. They have been scolded and they were anti-staff. I think being able to show growth is a pretty important thing. I think Candidate 4 would be respected by the general fora, especially because they've shown that they have a fun side, and they're not all serious business. After all, one of the best members on staff is a major Candidate 4.

---

I think I'll write more specifics later. But personally, I think Candidate 3 and 4 would work best with our staff.

I think we should all put our opinions in on each candidate so that we all can gain a wider perspective, and then all together, we should analyze each candidate one at a time in a more organized fashion. But I don't want to feel like the Team Fruity dictator, so what do you guys want to do?

Alright, I'll give my impressions of the rest of the candidates now.

1. Candidate 1 sounds like he might alienate the newer forum members if he was made a CK. His experience would give him a good understanding of the rules, but I don't think it's really enough.

2. If Candidate 1 is pretending they've never heard of Candidate 2, too bad. xP A little spam wouldn't be much of a problem, as long as he doesn't overdo it. Psy does a good enough job. Being active in all of the forums is a big plus. Too many people never post outside of General Chat. Plus, they'd be around enough to get a lot accomplished.

3. Candidate 3 sounds a lot like a certain someone who would have signed up for this contest if they'd known about it, but concedes that the very fact that he didn't know about it means he probably shouldn't win. However, if by "gaming forums" you mean the Final Fantasy forums, that might not be as much of an issue, since those forums are kind of undermoderated at times. One other drawback is that they don't sound like big participants in the community aspect of the site very much.

4. I think Candidate 4 would have been a pretty bad addition to staff a few years ago, but now they'd do a good job. Like Rye said, his attitude problem seems to be a thing of the past, and who cares about that? They're very well-liked and probably respected, which would be great for the relationship between the staff and normal members. Honestly, the only drawback for number 4 is that he doesn't post enough in the FF forums, and that would be easy enough for them to change.

I'd vote for number 4 first and number 2 second.

I'll post my initial thoughts on each of the candidates. I think it'd be helpful if everyone were to take a look at the candidates and wrote what their own thoughts were before most of the debate takes place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Candidate 1 -

• Longtime member who has been around for many years.
• Well known and respected by most of the veterans, but has not had much interaction with most of the the newer members.
• Posts mainly in the general categories and Feedback.
• Has a smart unique personality and outlook that not many others have.
• Forum activity is currently moderate.

---

I think this is a pretty strong candidate. The fact that they've been around a long time is a plus because they'll have a lot of experience in using the forums and in taking part in the community in general. The lack of interaction with newer members presents a problem in that the newer members (these days) are the lifeblood of the forum that keeps it fresh. I would consider that activity in the general forums and feedback to be a further strength because those are the forums that tend to need the most moderating. We all know how feedback has gotten in the past. Personality seems one that is their best strength. Intelligence is a plus, but the fact that their outlook is somewhat different and can bring different perspectives to the table in staff discussions is the main value I see in their personality. Forum activity being moderate I don't see as being a particular strength or weakness, but obviously it would be better if they were more active.

Quote:

---

Candidate 2

• Joined within the last year but has become one of the top posters during that time.
• Well received and like by most of the newer members, but some of the oldbies will probably claim they've never heard of this person.
• Active poster in all forums, but mainly in General Chat.
• Friendly poster but has the tendency to spam and be immature at times.
• Forum activity level is very high

---

While I said that the experience of candidate 1 was a good thing, I think that the lack of experience presents a minor weakness. I say minor because the forums can and do change and so if they're an active poster NOW, it suggests to me that they're in-tune with how the forums are. The good relations with the newer members is a further strength, though there is a minor problem in the lack of knowledge with oldbies. Could cause a lack of respect for them? Activity is good. No problem with a bias for GC if they're active in all of them. Problem with the spamming and immaturity, but there's the possibility that a promotion to staff would curb those tendencies, if not, it might be a bit of risk. I'd say that was my primary concern with this candidate. Forum activity level is great.

Quote:

---

Candidate 3

• Has been an active member for 3 years.
• Posts a lot in the gaming forums but not much in the general forums.
• Is well known and well respected in the gaming forums for their helpfulness and advice.
• Calm and low-key demeanor. Hardly ever participates in forum 'events'.
• Forum activity level is very high in the Gaming forums, much less so in the General forums.

---

Length of stay here is fine. A healthy average of the first two candidates. Posting in the gaming forums I see as a strength because I think that sometimes that people (staff and members alike) overlook. This is good because they can not only moderate the gaming forums, but perhaps breathe some life into them. Personality sounds great, but the lack of activity in forum events could be a hitch. Naturally it would be good if they did take part or could be encouraged to take part. Forum events can be dramatic, hence my concern. Activity in the gaming forums - as I've said - I view as a strength, but on the balance of things, I'd say the lack of activity in the general forums (the more high maintanance forums in my opinion) is a considerable weakness.

Quote:

---

Candidate 4

• One of the top posters in General Chat for a number of years.
• Everyone's buddy. Has won numerous Ciddies in many different categories.
• Generally well liked by the community, but has had run-ins with the staff due to their non-serious, jokster nature.
• At one point claimed to be "anti-staff" but that position has since changed.
• Forum activity level is high in the General forums. Never visits the gaming forums.

---

Top poster in GC is fine and I'd consider it a particular strength of this candidate. Being a buddy and jokey can be seen as a strength and a weakness. Having someone who naturally gets on well with the general membership is great, but if that could be a problem (e.g. an unwillingness to deal with buddies who break the rules). If their anti-staff position has changed, I don't see it as too much of an issue. Activity does concern me though. Despite being high in the general forums (as I said, the ones that probably need most moderating attention), if they're not bothering to visit the gaming forums and are showing a lack of interest in them, there's a problem there. My initial evaluation was that this candidate was the weakest of the five.

Quote:

---

Candidate 5

• Since joining EoFF two years ago, this person has dived right into the community and become an active poster throughout the forum.
• Is constantly posting ideas for new events and making interesting, interactive threads.
• Well liked by the community for their upbeat personality.
• Sensitive in nature, this poster shies away from confrontation and prefers to go with the flow.
• Activity level is not always constant. Periods of intense activity are sometimes followed by very low levels of posting.

---

Integration into the forum is brilliant. Time period here is fine as well. The innovation is one of the traits I like most about this candidate. Obviously the staff tend to run most of the new events (such as this one right here!) and so an enthusiasm and spark for running such events is a strength. Well liked in the community is great too. Perhaps a slight issue with the upbeat personality (i.e. unwilling to discipline), which is reinforced by the shying away from confrontation. At the end of the day, if they are staff then confrontation is unavoidable. I say this because naturally over run-ins with the membership and over discussions such as these in the staff forum over forum policy will take place at some point or another. Activity levels are also a concern. Would much rather they were more consistent in their activity.

----

Those are my initial appraisals of all the candidates. I've not read the other posts in this thread as I wanted to get my impressions out first and foremost both for my benefit and other people's when we come to start to reach conclusions later on in this task. I'll go read Rye and Roto's posts now.

That was some pretty great analysis. While I still stand by Candidate 4, you did really bring Candidate 1 into a positive light. I'd say Candidate 1 and 3 are tied now in my estimation. :]

I agree with Roto and Rye on candidate 5 - although they sound like a fantastic member, their varied activity level and disliking of confrontations speak against them. Being a generally loved member and being creative when it comes to threads don't necessarily mean they'll be a good Cid's Knight.

To me candidate 3 and 4 sound like each others' opposites in a way. I agree with Rye that the fact that candidate 4 used to be anti-staff and has had run-ins with them in the past don't mean that they wouldn't become a great Cid's Knight. As she's already pointed out the member has experienced some growth, and growth/potential is a good quality. The fact that they're not really that active in the gaming forums doesn't strike me as a problem either, since everyone can't be balanced out when it comes to activity in certain forums, and I highly doubt that any of the current Cid Knight's regularly post in every single forum here. Also, being well-liked and popular help.
Candidate 3 actually sounds like a good Cid's Knight contender to me. They have some very good qualities: Helpful, respected and therefore probably also well-liked by their fellow members. Respect is not very easily attained, and it's a lot easier to become a popular and well-liked member than it is to become a respected member. The fact that they mostly post in the gaming forums, and not that much in the general ones, isn't really an issue to me: As I see it, it's important for a staff, or another group of any kind, to have some diversity. So, while there may be a lot more going on in the general forums, and moderation is more needed there, candidate 3 will be able to moderate the gaming forums, that some of the other CKs may not typically focus on that much.

Candidate 1 sounds more like the typical Cid's Knight. They've been a member for a long time so they most certainly know the rules and they mostly post in the general forums where moderation probably is more needed. Also, they have an interesting/cool personality and the different outlook on things probably will be a good addition to the staff because, as I already mentioned, diversity and different outlooks are good qualities. Also, the fact that they don't really interact with the newbies can totally be fixed. Candidate 1 seems like an all-around great candidate to become a Cid's Knight, but the fact that they seem to be a bit too typical/traditional might be a small problem. Although they have a different outlook in things, trying something completely different might be a good idea for the staff? I don't really know what to make of candidate 1 yet.

Although candidate 2 sounds like a great member, the fact that some members might claim they've never heard of them, their tendency to spam and being immature and that they've only been a member for about a year (and therefore they may be a bit green) speak against them. A high level of activity, and in all forums as well, is a neat thing, but not enough to become a Cid's Knight.

For me candidate 2 and 5 don't seem as eligible as the rest to become CKs.. I'm not entirely sure as to which one of the rest I'd make a Cid's Knight, as of yet that is. I'll have to read what the others have to say as well.

Okay what has been said above is basically what I would have said as well. :)

Candidate One

Smart and an oldbie but doesn't post enough in other forums. I think he/she would make a bad candidate because he/she won't make the effort to get to know his/her new fellow Eoffers.

Candidate Two

This Candidate wouldn't really stand out to me enough that says "Cid's Knight". He/she wouldn't make a bad CK but wouldn't stand out enough.
Good that he/she is a regular, as for the spamming who doesn't these days. Although if it did get out of hand after being he/she was knighted then a demotion would be considered. That would make the staff look bad.

Candidate Three

This Candidate sounds like a nice guy/girl. Although he/she doesn't post a lot in the general forum it sounds like he/she is into their games or helping out. He/she though needs to widen their variety when it comes to forums and also need to be more involved with Eoff events. If we needed someone on the staff that knows a lot about games and can help out then sure I'd knight him.

Candidate Four

I think this one sounds a bit like Psychotic. :p This Candidate sounds like a great person and would be a fantastic CK. He/She would need to expand their variety of forum posting though. For the anti-staff thing it wouldn't be a problem anymore since he/she has changed it doesn't matter. I think he/she would also be perfect because we all need to have a laugh now and again. I think you would need to be a jokester with the amount of horrible things people would say to you, you would need to not take things personally. This would be my candidate. :)

Candidate Five

I think this candidate would also make a good CK. He/She is bit different from the rest of the candidates, and full of ideas. He/She has a great personality and sounds like they would talk to anyone. The only problems would be the sensitivity and the periods of low posting. The sensitivity would be a problem because he/she might not be able to handle the pressure that CK's have to handle almost everyday. The periods of low posting can be fixed if that person is determined but it would be worrisome. :mog:

I vote for Candidate 4 because I think he/she would be able top handle the pressure put upon them. I like the sound of Candidate 5 he/she is full of ideas which is always a good thing for Eoff, just got to remember to be gentle on them. :cool:

Candidate 3 and 4 share the 1st place for me right now, with candidate 1 coming in 2nd.

So it seems that Candidate 4 is the most liked among us! 3 and 1 also seem to be high up there. We definitely need to bug the rest of our team come and comment, but it seems that we may have a candidate selection yet!

I think that perhaps, once we've all thrown in our opinions on each candidate, we should start eliminating the ones we definitely don't want. I think a good thing about our team is that while we all have different things to point out, we all have a similar mind set on what we think is good for EoFF, which is making this far easier than I expected! :jess:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

So it seems that Candidate 4 is the most liked among us! 3 and 1 also seem to be high up there. We definitely need to bug the rest of our team come and comment, but it seems that we may have a candidate selection yet!

I think that perhaps, once we've all thrown in our opinions on each candidate, we should start eliminating the ones we definitely don't want. I think a good thing about our team is that while we all have different things to point out, we all have a similar mind set on what we think is good for EoFF, which is making this far easier than I expected! :jess:

---

Yeah, I agree. We should really just wait for the rest to cite their opinions on the different candidates, and then we can slowly, but probably also pretty surely, start eliminating some of them. But yeah, 1, 3 and 4 seem to be on the top of the list right now.

Excellent! Do any of you have any ideas about who would be the first person you would choose to eliminate?

I still don't really have a lot of faith in candidate 1, but alright. :P

I say we make our votes official in the mafia way. xD

##Vote: Candidate 4

:P

EDIT: I've been hovering over this thread too long.

Alright, elimination. I think we can all agree that we shouldn't bother to consider number 5 any more. We might want to wait for input from a few other people, though.

My initial thoughts were that 4 was the weakest candidate but having given the matter some thought, I think I was a bit hasty saying that. If I had to pick one to go first, I'd probably go with number two. My reasoning being that the immaturity and spamming could bring the staff into disrepute, cause drama within the staff and their relative newness to the forum. However on the face of the latter, I would say that some staff members have been promoted earlier than under a year and it wouldn't be unheard of, but in this case I don't think it would be justifiable to do so.

Edit: I agree with Roto as well on number five. So either of those two I'd be fine with eliminating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

Excellent! Do any of you have any ideas about who would be the first person you would choose to eliminate?

---

I'd personally eliminate candidate 2 and candidate 5, but let's wait and see what the rest of the "fruits", that haven't posted here yet, say :)

Yes, I think we all think 5 sounds like a great member, and a great candidate for Site Staff, but they just wouldn't be able to get the job right as a CK. Sometimes, you have to be firm with people, and 5 seems incapable of that. I think 5 will most likely be the first to be eliminated. But half of our team hasn't even posted yet so I agree that we should wait.

Quote:

---

Candidate 1

• Longtime member who has been around for many years.
• Well known and respected by most of the veterans, but has not had much interaction with most of the the newer members.
• Posts mainly in the general categories and Feedback.
• Has a smart unique personality and outlook that not many others have.
• Forum activity is currently moderate.

---

Candidate one has experience in abundance; however, it appears as though he's not exactly in tune with EoFF. As someone else mentioned, the newbies seem to be a large part of the fora's lifeblood. The information specifies that he does not interact much with the newer members, but it does not specify whether or not he is capable of it. His smart, unique personality and outlook speak to his ability to moderate effectively, so I assume that would mean he would also be able to recognize his responsibilities and learn to pay more attention to all members and not just the veterans. The only major point I see against him is that he is only classified as moderately active. It appears to me most of candidate one's faults are easily correctable, and would be something that he might change instinctively by becoming a Knight and gaining new responsibilities.

Quote:

---

Candidate 2

• Joined within the last year but has become one of the top posters during that time.
• Well received and like by most of the newer members, but some of the oldbies will probably claim they've never heard of this person.
• Active poster in all forums, but mainly in General Chat.
• Friendly poster but has the tendency to spam and be immature at times.
• Forum activity level is very high

---

Quite honestly, candidate two sounds like he'd make a great Knight once he calms down a little bit. He sounds an awful lot like how candidate four used to be. On EoFF, it generally seems harder to gain recognition from the veterans, so while I think candidate one would be able to work backwards to get to know some of the newbies, it might be harder for candidate to do the same in reverse. His tendency to spam and act immaturely speaks to his character. I think candidate two is someone to put into the back of one's mind to remember as a potential candidate later down the road.

Quote:

---

Candidate 3

• Has been an active member for 3 years.
• Posts a lot in the gaming forums but not much in the general forums.
• Is well known and well respected in the gaming forums for their helpfulness and advice.
• Calm and low-key demeanor. Hardly ever participates in forum 'events'.
• Forum activity level is very high in the Gaming forums, much less so in the General forums.

---

I think the candidate's lack of activity in the general fora hurt him a little bit, as those seem to be the areas which require heavier moderation. However, since the member is well-known and respected for helpfulness and advice, his personality seems to lend himself to a leadership position such as a Cid's Knight. The lack of participation in forum events generally shows that the user isn't particularly invested in EoFF as a whole. Despite that, candidate three seems more well-rounded than the previous two candidates.

Quote:

---

Candidate 4

• One of the top posters in General Chat for a number of years.
• Everyone's buddy. Has won numerous Ciddies in many different categories.
• Generally well liked by the community, but has had run-ins with the staff due to their non-serious, jokster nature.
• At one point claimed to be "anti-staff" but that position has since changed.
• Forum activity level is high in the General forums. Never visits the gaming forums.

---

Lack of activity, which seems to be this candidate's most immediate weakness, in any forum never particularly bothers me. Becoming a Cid's Knight introduces new responsibilities, and one can learn to alter their habits to more effectively serve a new role. As such, candidate four, if he were to become a CK, could be encouraged to check the gaming fora more recently. As I mentioned earlier, this candidate seems like a more advanced version of candidate two. He would serve well as a mediator because of his ability to keep the situation in perspective. As long as he is capable of setting aside his jokester nature and be serious (which most jokesters can if the situation calls for it), I think he'd be able to serve well on staff.

Quote:

---

Candidate 5

• Since joining EoFF two years ago, this person has dived right into the community and become an active poster throughout the forum.
• Is constantly posting ideas for new events and making interesting, interactive threads.
• Well liked by the community for their upbeat personality.
• Sensitive in nature, this poster shies away from confrontation and prefers to go with the flow.
• Activity level is not always constant. Periods of intense activity are sometimes followed by very low levels of posting.

---

"Sensitive in nature, this poster shies away from confrontation and prefers to go with the flow." I don't care what other qualifications the candidate possesses, this alone shows that he would not be effective in a moderating position. The faults of the other candidates, for the most part, are correctable. However, the passive, non-confrontational character trait is not something so easily reversed. One has to be able to dive into confrontation to effectively moderate, as one can't make everyone happy all the time. This alone renders the candidate ineffective for such a role. I agree, though, that he may be well suited to a site staff position.


I think we should first eliminate candidates two and five then more closely examine the merits of the remaining three contenders. We have some time left to do this, and I think it's important we arrive at a candidate we can all agree upon. As such, it would likely be best to eliminate those we all believe to be unsuitable for the position.

Personally, I'm in favor of candidate number three. He seems well-rounded, has already gained the respect of other members, and seems to be well-suited to moderating duties. His lack of activity outside of the gaming fora is easily remedied, I think. Candidates one and four, I believe, would also be suitable. My current order of preference would likely be 3, 4, 1.

If we're going by majority rule for elimination, I feel that Candidate 5 is already out. Any objections?

Also, I agree with Zach's great analysis that 2 is like the newbie version of 4. I think that makes 2 somewhat obsolete. Any objections or comments on this?

I think that's a very valid and fair analysis of candidate 2 and I agree with it. Good work, Zach :) I also think there's a somewhat growing consensus for candidates 1, 3 and 4 being the strongest but I think that we should ensure that everyone is in agreement with that before we progress any further.

Jess' two cents:

Quote:

---

Candidate 1
Longtime member who has been around for many years.
Well known and respected by most of the veterans, but has not had much interaction with most of the the newer members.
Posts mainly in the general categories and Feedback.
Has a smart unique personality and outlook that not many others have.
Forum activity is currently moderate.

---

Candidate 1 has been around for years, so will have been around to see the forum grow and change – and having been around for so long they will have a good understanding of the rules. The biggest problem with this candidate is the lack of interaction with the newer members of the forum because the forum is continuously gaining new members, and newer members are often ones that need to be reminded of the rules rather than the veterans -- however, being a CK may make this candidate seem more approachable for the newer members and encourage interaction. Activity in the general categories is a good thing, as they are a very active part of the forums. Of course, intelligence is a plus and having somebody with a different outlook to other staff members on staff could prove to be useful. Forum activity could be better, but I don’t see this as a major problem with this candidate.

Quote:

---

Candidate 2
Joined within the last year but has become one of the top posters during that time.
Well received and like by most of the newer members, but some of the oldbies will probably claim they've never heard of this person.
Active poster in all forums, but mainly in General Chat.
Friendly poster but has the tendency to spam and be immature at times.
Forum activity level is very high

---

Candidate 2 may be fairly new to EoFF, but 1 year is long enough to be fully aware of the rules. Similar to candidate 1, the problem here is the fact that they may not interact well with all members of the forum as a CK. If Candidate 2 has problems seeing eye-to-eye with the veterans of the forum then this could cause a lack of respect if they were to be made a CK. The activity for this member is great, as having somebody who is extremely active on the forums is always going to be a plus for the staff as they will be on hand to deal with any problems. The tendency to spam and immaturity is the biggest weakness of Candidate 2 as it isn’t guaranteed if Candidate 2 was given the responsibility of being a CK that they would cut down on the spamming and set an example – as if newer members see a CK constantly spamming then they are going to get the impression that it is okay for them to do it as well.

Quote:

---

Candidate 3
Has been an active member for 3 years.
Posts a lot in the gaming forums but not much in the general forums.
Is well known and well respected in the gaming forums for their helpfulness and advice.
Calm and low-key demeanor. Hardly ever participates in forum 'events'.
Forum activity level is very high in the Gaming forums, much less so in the General forums.

---

3 years of being consistently active is great. Although being active in the gaming forums is a strength, I see not being active in the general forums as a major problem for this member. The general forums are an extremely active part of the forums and need to have attention paid to them for any rule breaks. I see not participating in forum events as a minor weakness for this candidate.

Quote:

---

Candidate 4
One of the top posters in General Chat for a number of years.
Everyone's buddy. Has won numerous Ciddies in many different categories.
Generally well liked by the community, but has had run-ins with the staff due to their non-serious, jokster nature.
At one point claimed to be "anti-staff" but that position has since changed.
Forum activity level is high in the General forums. Never visits the gaming forums.

---

I don’t see the ‘anti-staff’ thing as an issue here for this candidate as it was in the past. If the member has changed their views then I do not see why this should be held against them. The high activity in the general forums is great, but the lack of activity in the gaming forums is a slight concern. I don’t see it as much of as a concern as a lack of activity in the general forums as they tend to have a lot more ‘drama’. A jokster nature is not a huge concern as long as the member can be serious when it is needed.

Quote:

---

Candidate 5
Since joining EoFF two years ago, this person has dived right into the community and become an active poster throughout the forum.
Is constantly posting ideas for new events and making interesting, interactive threads.
Well liked by the community for their upbeat personality.
Sensitive in nature, this poster shies away from confrontation and prefers to go with the flow.
Activity level is not always constant. Periods of intense activity are sometimes followed by very low levels of posting.

---

This candidate has their high points but also there are two major problems. The next-to-no activity for periods of time is a concern. The biggest concern for this candidate is that they are sensitive and that they shy away from confrontation but I do have a little thought on this; just because they shy away from confrontation on a personal level as a regular member of the forums would they be the same with enforcing the rules as a CK? A lot of people adapt from a ‘personal’ level to a ‘professional’ level when they have responsibilities and a job to do.

Y'arr, I just woke up and had to read this MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT. Haha. Looks like the majority of you have weighed in already, and I like seeing the rationale you are all exhibiting. I've done this very same exercise at my university only a couple of weeks ago, but a big part of the selection process was first to take a look at the existing "board," and then taking a look at the candidates. For example, you don't need 10 of one type and 1 of another. So for that reason:

OOC:

Questions for Jeff Probst: 1. Are we choosing these candidates based on the current Cid's Knights, or a hypothetical staff? 2. In the first post, it says "come to a decision on who to promote," but never gives a quantity. I'll assume we're promoting ONE of the five, not two or three. Because obviously, the task would be easier if we could choose all five, and become more difficult with less promotions. Thanks.

We've all been acting under the assumption of one promotion to the current staff roster, so I'll stay in the same line of reasoning.

Since a majority of you have already posted in favor of certain candidates and clearly don't like candidate 5, I think I'll just spend some time highlighting number 5 for a last, critical look.

Pros
Joined two years ago, enough time to know how the place operates.
Active poster throughout the forum - gaming as well as general.
New events, interesting threads - Who doesn't like this, again? The whole reason people come here is to talk with people and do things together in these types of threads. =P
Well liked - no brainer.
Upbeat personality - Probably doesn't start conflicts with other members.
Shies away from confrontation - Definitely doesn't start conflicts with other members. Agreeable.

Cons
Periods of decreased activity - see "every current admin."

The last line of candidate 5 is the only real negative I see, and could be easily mended if given a responsibility. I imagine this candidate being an all-over internet user, as they make interesting threads and stuff they probably draw from a lot of places. If suddenly someone says to them: "Hey, you make this place better and more fun for a lot of people, please stick around more often and help us keep it that way," they would probably be delighted and do just that.

Besides that, lines 1 and 5 are contradicting. "Active poster" vs. "very low levels of posting." Are we to take this to mean that they were only active at the start and have since ditched the place, or that when they decide to come around they are quite active??

I'm not going to do this for every candidate, I'm just going to play devil's advocate for the candidates you think are scrap worthy. =)

I think that playing devil's advocate is good. But I don't think that shying from conflict is good. Sometimes you have to be tough and tell someone no. It's part of the job.

As for those 2 questions, those are great. We should probably talk about those. I think for question 1, it's more based on if we were all part of the current staff.

Question 1 is left up to you.
You choose one person only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linus

Shies away from confrontation - Definitely doesn't start conflicts with other members. Agreeable.

---

While an interesting way to interpret the statement, I still find this to be a critical flaw. Part of a Knight's job is to confront members when they break rules. I don't imagine that's a very happy part of the job, and it's quite clear that members don't always react in the most mature or effective manners. I believe that shying away from confrontation, then, would directly interfere with candidate five's ability to enforce the rules.

I do think your suggestion that we should look at ourselves as the staff first is an interesting suggestion. According to the task instructions, we are the staff, so perhaps we should examine ourselves in comparison to these candidates and see how we measure up and how selecting a new member might fill in some of the weaknesses we, as a staff, may have. For example, I'm fairly certain everyone in team fruity can be classified as a veteran. As a group, we don't represent new members very well.

Looking at it this way, we may not want to consider candidate one. He has the experience factor, but so does the rest of our hypothetical staff. We've all be around for quite some time. I think, then, we may want to more strongly consider three and four, as they offer different things that one does not. It's something to think about, at least.

That's what I like about 4. They're not what you expect as the typical CK, so they can bring something unique to the table. Diversity.

Also, while I agree we're very much veteran, a lot of us do interact with new members, which gives us a good newbie to oldbie scope. :]

That's true as well, which only furthers that we, as a group, have both demographics fairly well covered. In such a case, perhaps what demographic our selection appeals to may be of less consequence than other factors.

I'd really appreciate it if DK and Flying Mullet were to post soon. <3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ouch!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linus

Shies away from confrontation - Definitely doesn't start conflicts with other members. Agreeable.

---

While an interesting way to interpret the statement, I still find this to be a critical flaw. Part of a Knight's job is to confront members when they break rules. I don't imagine that's a very happy part of the job, and it's quite clear that members don't always react in the most mature or effective manners. I believe that shying away from confrontation, then, would directly interfere with candidate five's ability to enforce the rules.

---

I agree. Although the fact that they won't start conflicts is a strength of a person, I think that may suggest that the person would struggle to enforce the rules with some of the less mature members.

Candidate 3 seems to have the most "value added" to our team of ten, in my opinion. I don't know about the rest of you, but while I would be perfectly competent moderating the gaming forums, I would not be the best at helping gamers achieve their goals or answering questions about the many Square games I've not played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

That's what I like about 4. They're not what you expect as the typical CK, so they can bring something unique to the table. Diversity.

---

Yeah, that's why I'm the most fond of 3 and 4 - they both seem to be able to shake both our staff and the current staff up a bit. Because they both are different they bring some diversity to the table, and diversity is very important when it comes to any decision-making group of people.

The diversity factor is also why I'm a bit on the fence with candidate 1, although they seem like an all-around good member and contender to become a Cid's Knight. I mean, let's just face it.. most of us fruits on this team are more or less similar to candidate 1, apart from not interacting with the newbies.. which I think we, as a team, do. And so, if we were the staff I think bringing either 3 or 4 into the staff would be prefered, at least by me.

EDIT: I agree with Linus with what he said on candidate 3 - this candidate brings something new to the table moderation-wise, plus they already have the respect of their fellow members.

Candidate 4 mostly brings something new to the table when it comes to personality, plus being able to grow and thereby show potential.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I'd personally choose candidate three over candidate four. I agree with Linus's assessment of the importance of having a member who can help the community outside of moderating. I'm sure we'd all be competent moderating the gaming fora, as would candidate four, certainly, but it seems that candidate three would offer more than just that.

Quite honestly, our group probably has the diverse personality thing already covered in the staff. I don't know about the rest of you quite as much, but I'm certainly not capable of spouting off the kind of information that it would appear candidate three is. I mean, I play a lot of video games (the amount of cash that has disappeared from my wallet over the past few months can attest to that), but I'm not often able to answer some of the more specific questions that make appearances in the gaming fora. While it's not absolutely necessary that a staff member can answer these questions (after all, there are likely plenty of non-staff members perfectly capable of doing it), it wouldn't hurt to have that kind of representation amongst our ranks.

It seems general consensus is leading towards candidate four and candidate three. For this reason, I'd like to more specifically focus on the merits of these two members and how they'll fit in our group. I'm going to tackle each candidate point-by-point and weigh the value as I see them fitting into the dynamic of our group. Once again, candidate three:

Candidate 3

• Has been an active member for 3 years.
• Posts a lot in the gaming forums but not much in the general forums.
• Is well known and well respected in the gaming forums for their helpfulness and advice.
• Calm and low-key demeanor. Hardly ever participates in forum 'events'.
• Forum activity level is very high in the Gaming forums, much less so in the General forums.

All the members of our team have been part of this community for some time. Three years is a considerable amount of time to devote to EoFF, and we can be sure that this member is familiar with the way the place works and also sees how it has grown. I think he'll fit in great in that aspect.

As previously noted, the activeness in the general fora is always good, especially since it seems harder to come by. Combined with point three--that he is respected for his helpfulness and advice--we can see that candidate three will be able to offer something new to our group.

The calm and low-key demeanor is both a hit and a miss. Ideally, we want staff members to be involved with forum activities. However, I'd say our group as a whole is currently very active in the community. As a result, I tend to put less weight in this fault.

Again, activity in the gaming fora as a trade off to the general fora isn't terribly bad. Upon knighthood, the member can be encouraged to participate more actively in the general fora. That's something easily changed, as opposed to character traits.

Candidate 4

• One of the top posters in General Chat for a number of years.
• Everyone's buddy. Has won numerous Ciddies in many different categories.
• Generally well liked by the community, but has had run-ins with the staff due to their non-serious, jokster nature.
• At one point claimed to be "anti-staff" but that position has since changed.
• Forum activity level is high in the General forums. Never visits the gaming forums.

Being a top poster is certainly an advantage. Then again, looking at our group... many of our members already have this covered. To an extent, in this regard candidate four may just be more of the same.

Candidate four seems like an all around friendly guy. He seems to get along with everyone, and is generally popular with a majority of the board (he does win a lot of Ciddies, after all). Again, we've got both of these fairly well represented here. That cover the popularity bit of point three, as well.

I think there's enough of us in this group who can be classified as jokesters and non-serious. I don't really think our group requires any lightening up or comic relief. In fact, we might need a little bit of the opposite.

I think we've decided that point four is moot. The past is the past, and there's really no reason to hold previous anti-staff sentiments against candidate four if he's changed.

Like in the case of candidate three, forum activity can be changed. However, candidate four doesn't offer the added bonus of being able to contribute to the gaming fora (at least, the information provided doesn't seem to suggest that), so while we may be able to convince this candidate to frequent the gaming fora, I don't expect to be able to get him to actively contribute. While this normally wouldn't be much of a problem, in comparison to what three can offer, I see this as a bit of a fault.

I'll concede that my analysis has been biased by my own preference for candidate three, but that's how I'm justifying said bias right now. Hopefully someone can provide with some altering opinions. If not, perhaps we're all already in agreement? While there's no rush (we've got almost seventeen hours left), I'm going to go ahead and throw in my vote for candidate three. Of course, I'm open to being convinced, but I think that candidate three can best broaden the horizons of our hypothetical group of Knights.

After having read Ouch!'s post I'm pretty much convinced that candidate 3 will be the best addition to our staff. As I've already mentioned, 3 and 4 both bring something unique to the table, but where 3's unique-ness is moderation-wise 4's unique-ness is personality-wise. But, as Ouch! pointed out our staff is already pretty diverse when it comes to personalities, but we don't have someone like candidate 3.

Anyway, I'm going to work now, but will be back later today to see what everyone else has to say, but as for now my vote goes to candidate 3.

I'm chiming in before I go to work. :P

I can see a stronger case made for number 3, but I still think number 4 would be the best choice because I think he'd get a lot of respect from the regular members.

That's all I have time to say right now. xP I should be home in time to add more.

Yes, I'll be at school, so I'm not sure what will happen next until I get back. I still stand by 4, but as 3 is my second choice, I wouldn't mind conceding to 3 if the majority wants them.

So, thus far, it seems that

Breine - 3 (runner up: 4)
Ouch! - 3 (runner up: 4)
Roto - 4 (runner up: 3)
Rye - 4 (runner up: 3)

I'm not sure if Linus is for 3 or is just continuing devil's advocate, so I'm not sure where to place him there.

We still need a definitive vote from:

smittenkitten
Jess:
DK:
Flying Mullet:
Heath:
Linus:

More comments, especially from those who haven't really participated would be greatly appreciated, since we have to come to a consensus by 8 Eastern Time (or 5 for Pacific Time folk)

Seeing as there is no point in reiterating what everyone else has already said I'm just going to say that I agree with the concensus that 2 and 5 are not the CK's for us.

1, 3 and 4 are all in with a fair shout for mine though. Out of the three so far I think 3 is probably the option I'd go for but it's not set in concrete yet.

Number one doesn't have many negative points aside from the fact that they don't intergrate well with the nubby nubs, which probably wouldn't be so bad if they weren't openly hostile or anything like that. If they just stuck to their own friends but kept everything open minded and dealt with everyone fairly as far as moderating goes then it would be fine, but if not then that's something that's going to need to be sorted out. Apparently they don't post much in the gaming forums either but that is something I will come to later.

Number 3 has been around for a while and so knows how things are going down and they have pretty much an all round good review. The only thing that seemingly works against them is the fact that they don't post a lot in the general forums (should be noted that it's just that, they post LESS there, not not post at all there like the other two). I actually don't see that as much of a problem, they just post there a lot less. They're still actively checking them we can assume, and they're also posting a lot in the game forums. General forums are currently viewed by almost all of the Cid's Knights on a regular basis, and that alone imho gives this candidate more of a case than the other two.

Number 4 probably has the highest potential as far as being a CK goes, but it's going to be hard to make a decision with what we've got because it's something that you'd have to take in the persons personality to fully make a decision. Obviously we can't do that because it's a hypothetical situation, but being "everyone's buddy" is not necessarily a good thing because we don't know if this person has the responsibility to act as a CK should with everyone or if they will be lenient on people they are close with or what. Also the fact that they never visit the game forums at all works against them. Not POSTING I could deal with 'cause as long as they're checking them and reading threads it doesn't matter, but if they don't go there at all then it'd again depend on the person, would they be willing to go do it if the other CK's asked them or would they just sack it off because they only want to go to the Gen forums? Again it's not a question we can answer but it should be something to consider.

Although I don't think them having previous with the Staff should really be a negative, it's just another case of needing to know the personality of this candidate so we can tell if they would have the responsibility to do the CK job properly or not. Something we can't judge them on so for the purpose of this exercise I am not sure they are the best choice. Some of the highest potential for real Cid's Knights, sure, but yeah. We'll see.

Edit: just to clarify what I'm saying about #4, two people who could fit that description are Psychotic and Primus Inter Pares. Would Psy be a good Cid's Knight? Yes, he does a fantastic job. Would PiP be a good Cid's Knight? Would he bollocks. We just don't know enough about this person IN THIS EXERCISE to make a good call on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linus

Y'arr, I just woke up and had to read this MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT.

---

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. xD But then, I had another half a wall of text to read after his post. :cry:

On to the serious business.

For my quick analysis of the candidates(based on the ten of us being the current staff):
Candidate 1
It's great that their forum activity has been consistent for many years, but their lack of inactivity with newer members is a huge negative for me. Currently our forums seem to be "goeing" (We love you bipper!) through a renaissance of sorts and I know that's partly due to the new "class" of newbies that have joined recently and pumped some much needed life-blood into the forums. Someone that doesn't interact with them and seems to be content to leave things as they are will result in a boring forum in a state of decay.

Candidate 2
Another active candidate, with a lot of opposites to Candidate 1. I think they might be a great candidate in another year or so once they've settled down and matured in their forum usage. Right now it seems that the novelty of the forums hasn't worn off and they're more interested in being the class clown then focusing on maintaining and furthering the forums through leadership.

Candidate 3
Lack of participation in forum events can be a problem. I don't care that they don't post as much in General Chat. Most of the moderating staff hangs out there so it has plenty of coverage. I like that they're regulars in the gaming areas as those seems to have less moderator coverage.

Candidate 4
Another opposite, this time to Candidate 3. It seems that we have a few of these right now on staff, so another one won't add much new, probably just another one-of-the-same.

Candidate 5
I don't care what redeeming qualities they might have, but avoiding confrontation and long periods of inactivity make this a less-than-ideal candidate. No thank you.

My votes?
I think Candidate 3 and 4 are the best choices, but because we have more Candidate 4's on "our staff", I prefer Candidate 3 for some balance. In my mind a moderator is a moderator first and Candidate 3's browsing habits add moderation to areas that need moderation more than Candidate 4.

Flying Mullet - 3 (runner up: 4)

While I initially discounted 4 and then gave them some thought and reconsidered, I'd have to say that I've always favoured number 3 over number 4. On the face of it, despite the evident character development of number 4, I think I'd be happier with 1. So based on that:

My votes'll go for number 3, then number 1 as my runner up.

I think after reading some posts Candidate 3 is the best option. We do need a CK for the Gaming Forum and he/she sounds like a helper which is always good. He/she seems to be a sensible chap so that's why I would vote for Candidate 3. I can see that we already have a Candidate 4 and I think we need something new. It's ashame Candidate 5 is so sensitive and doesn't post enough because a person with ideas is always a good thing to have. :)

Vote
#3

Okay, so now it's:

:ichigo: Team Fruity Votes: :ichigo:

Breine - 3 (runner up: 4)
Ouch! - 3 (runner up: 4)
Roto - 4 (runner up: 3)
Rye - 4 (runner up: 3)
smittenkitten - 3
Heath - 3 (Runner up: 1)
DK - 3 or 4
Linus - ???
Jess - ???
Flying Mullet - 3 (Runner up: 4)

So 5 for 3, 2 for 4, and 3 undecided. I think it's basically 3, unless the remaining 3 people vote 4, which is a possiblity because DK is on the fence with 4. But I'm not sure about Linus' opinion on 4, only his opinion of 3. I think Jess is pro - 4, but I'm not entirely certain.

However, I have to say in defense of 4, we do not have many 4's in staff. I am pretty staunch in supporting 4. Maybe we have a few in OUR staff, but if we were to considered ourselves integrated in the general staff, I'd still say that there aren't maybe 4's. I think there are far more low-key calm staffers that stick mostly in the gamer forum than 4's, so I wouldn't vote 4 out JUST on that count. Just putting that one out there for 4, because the only 4 I can think of is Psychotic, and he's one of the CKs I respect the most, and that's not just because he's one of my best friends. Just something to mull over.

But either way, I'll be happy. 3 and 4 are both great candidates. I think we're making a great choice either way, and what's even more excellent is how we all did look beyond the predictable candidate 4 assumption (weak candidate spam lolz!) and looked at them more deeply. :]

Get your votes in! <3

To be honest I don't get where this "there are lots of 4's" has come from either, the only one I can see is Psy, unless Michael and Warren have got a storied history that no one has filled me in on. Either way that's no reason to be choosing someone or not anyway, it doesn't make a jot of difference whether "there are too many of this type of person on staff!"or not, all that matters is how good they'll do the job. :monster:

edit: oh I see, in this group of 10. Well, either way, I still say the way they'd do the moderators job is far more important than what sort of flavour they add to the staff. :smash:

The reason I said "we have a lot of 4s" is out of our team, several people seem to frequent Gen Chat more than gaming sections including:

Breine
DK
Flying Mullet
Jess
Linus
Rye
smittenkitten

I like 3 better than 4 because "our staff" mostly posts in General Chat and doesn't hang out in the gaming sections as much. It's definitely possible that they post in gaming areas and I haven't seen it. This is based on my perceptions.

I am certainly not a 4. And I visit the gaming forums pretty often, I just read and don't post because I have nothing to add to the discussion, but there is a lot of humour to be found in those forums :kiss:

Jess is posting now, so we'll see her choice. Are you voting for 3 or 4, Dan?

I have a feeling this is going to end up being a tied vote. Uh oh! <3

Well as long as we pick 3 or 4, I'm okay with it.

I don't like 1 because I feel that they would let the forums stagnate while reminiscing about the good ol' days and wouldn't take advantage of all the fresh newbie meat to keep the forums exciting and interesting.

I don't like 2 because they don't seem to take the forums seriously yet. Once they've been around a bit longer and are more interested in its well-being than their own personal amusement, they might be a good fit.

I don't like 5 because they're a wuss and I've never liked having a yes-man in an authoritative position.

Since we had to pick one, I vote 3, but I'd be comfortable with 4 as well.

I'm not deciding yet. I'm waiting to see if any people who are staunchly 4 are going to post anything that will convince me to vote 4, if not then I will vote 3. But that'll come later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DK

To be honest I don't get where this "there are lots of 4's" has come from either, the only one I can see is Psy, unless Michael and Warren have got a storied history that no one has filled me in on. Either way that's no reason to be choosing someone or not anyway, it doesn't make a jot of difference whether "there are too many of this type of person on staff!"or not, all that matters is how good they'll do the job. :monster:

edit: oh I see, in this group of 10. Well, either way, I still say the way they'd do the moderators job is far more important than what sort of flavour they add to the staff. :smash:

---

In all honesty, when I was picking between the three I had left (having safely eliminated 2 and 5), that wasn't a deciding factor. Me and Rye were discussing in #teamfruity yesterday how she figured that number 4 not posting in the gaming forums is easily amendable. By that right, I figured that number 3 not posting in the general forums was also easily amendable and - on the face of it - preferred that candidate overall anyway. I'd say the potential for that individual to become more rounded with the staff role as an incentive to do so would be worth considering.

Edit: You crazy kids posting while I am. As Mullet is comfortable with 4 as well as 3, so am I. But my preference is definitely number 3.

I know someone can read forums they don't engage in regularly, but I like the idea of choosing a CK that posts regularly in said forums because the populace that regularly reads those forums are going to respect them and their decisions more(i.e. a regular in gaming will be respected more than a non-gaming regular that shows up, shakes their billy club and then leaves).

For the other qualities between 3 and 4, since we're focusing a lot on Gen Chat vs. Gaming forums right now:
* They've both been active for while and know the ropes, nothing to distinguish one or the other here.
* Candidate 3 seems to be more serious than Candidate 4. The fact that Candidate 3 has a history of offering help leans me more towards Candidate 3.
* Candidate 3 doesn't participate in forum events. That can be bad, but as long as they're doing a good moderating job, I honestly don't care. There are enough people on staff, fictitious or real, that can handle the events, come up with fun stuff and participate. This is why we have Recognized Members and why I like embracing the newbie populace to keep it fresh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DK

I'm not deciding yet. I'm waiting to see if any people who are staunchly 4 are going to post anything that will convince me to vote 4, if not then I will vote 3. But that'll come later.

---

I think one of the most appealing features to 4 is that it improves the relations between the CKs and the general forum goers. People are going to be bitter, resentful, and will disobey someone who is a 100% hardass. Candidate 4 seems like they've matured to the point where they can be serious when they need to, but the general forum respects them and will listen to them when they tell them to knock it off, etc. I feel like when you treat someone right, they will respect you better. I guess you could say Candidate 4 has the charisma.

On the flip side of that, since a lot of our members stay in GC, they would probably be less respectful for Candidate 3, if they just pop out of nowhere from the Gaming Forum and start moderating. It's definitely not Candidate 3's fault, but I've seen it happen various times, and you know that as well as I do, Dan. That's definitely something to consider.

I think that participating in forum events is important, though. It shows that you do want a great position in the forum community. Participating in events in the forum can show a lot of leadership. Running them is a lot of hard work, and involves organization and telling people when they have to cut the crap, at times. Doing odd jobs for site staff and the front page, which is really great and also shows a sense of community, seems more like a candidate for site staff/admin positions. I truly think 3 would be an amazing admin, but maybe not the best CK. They're still 2nd place to me, though.

I'll probably add more to that later, but that's something I respect in 4, and I feel hinders 3. Both are great candidates, but those reasons are big ones that make 4 pop a little more in my eyes.

Perhaps we should invite Candidate 3 and 4 to dinner and slip roofies in their drinks. While they're unconscious we'll do some Frankenstein-style voodoo and make the ideal candidate that has the best of both worlds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

I think one of the most appealing features to 4 is that it improves the relations between the CKs and the general forum goers. People are going to be bitter, resentful, and will disobey someone who is a 100% hardass. Candidate 4 seems like they've matured to the point where they can be serious when they need to, but the general forum respects them and will listen to them when they tell them to knock it off, etc. I feel like when you treat someone right, they will respect you better. I guess you could say Candidate 4 has the charisma.

---

Having said that, I don't think there's much to suggest that candidate 3 would be a hardass, despite there being evidence that candidate 4 wouldn't be. The fact that 3 has acted mature for some time and seems to enjoy helping people out suggests a pretty friendly nature and someone who wouldn't be authoritarian. I'd agree that 4 would probably more charisma though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

Perhaps we should invite Candidate 3 and 4 to dinner and slip roofies in their drinks. While they're unconscious we'll do some Frankenstein-style voodoo and make the ideal candidate that has the best of both worlds.

---

You've got my vote.

Awww yeahhh. :kaoclove:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heath

Having said that, I don't think there's much to suggest that candidate 3 would be a hardass, despite there being evidence that candidate 4 wouldn't be. The fact that 3 has acted mature for some time and seems to enjoy helping people out suggests a pretty friendly nature and someone who wouldn't be authoritarian. I'd agree that 4 would probably more charisma though.

---

Oh no, that wasn't to imply that Candidate 3 is a hardass, but they probably wouldn't have as great as a standing with the forum and wouldn't be given as great as respect and listened to as well. That may, depending on their nature, make the resort to being hard ass to get people to listen to them. Or it might make them give up and just slink back off to the gaming forum. It depends on them so much. It's hard to tell from 5 lines of text.

Unless I'm mistaken, it sounds like we're deciding between Candidates 3 and 4.

I know it might sound obvious, but I figured I would summarize for those coming in later that don't want to reread all of the posts that got us to Candidate 3 versus Candidate 4.

Good idea, Mullet! Summarizing is good. Cliffnotes for Team Fruity. CHICKEN SOUP FOR THE MODERATOR'S SOUL. :bigsmile:

I'll try to stop now and let everyone else mull it over. And I'll say it again, despite sounding really anti-3 in my last few posts, I do think they'd be a great candidate. I just really see a lot of potential in 4. I'll be very happy with either though. What do you guys think, those of you who haven't put in a definite vote?

And if someone strongly wants to consider another candidate, please speak up. I'm basing my super-green summary on the last dozen posts or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

Perhaps we should invite Candidate 3 and 4 to dinner and slip roofies in their drinks. While they're unconscious we'll do some Frankenstein-style voodoo and make the ideal candidate that has the best of both worlds.

---

I like this idea.

I vote for Candidate 3 based upon our many exquisite observations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

I think one of the most appealing features to 4 is that it improves the relations between the CKs and the general forum goers. People are going to be bitter, resentful, and will disobey someone who is a 100% hardass. Candidate 4 seems like they've matured to the point where they can be serious when they need to, but the general forum respects them and will listen to them when they tell them to knock it off, etc. I feel like when you treat someone right, they will respect you better. I guess you could say Candidate 4 has the charisma.

On the flip side of that, since a lot of our members stay in GC, they would probably be less respectful for Candidate 3, if they just pop out of nowhere from the Gaming Forum and start moderating. It's definitely not Candidate 3's fault, but I've seen it happen various times, and you know that as well as I do, Dan. That's definitely something to consider.

---

I agree with Heath that nothing says that Candidate 3 is gonna be a hardass. Since they're known for being helpful, and respected for that, becoming a 100% hardass just by becoming a Cid's Knight seems unlikely.

Also, candidate 3 is already a respected member, although mostly in the gaming forums, and candidate 4 has to go from being everyone's buddy and being popular to being respected. Respect is not easily attained and although people will probably respect the Cid's Knight title and the powers that come with it, it certainly doesn't hurt having attained it the hard way, rather than sort of having been given it when made a Cid's Knight.

EDIT: The summarizing is a great idea :)

Breine - 3 (runner up: 4)
Ouch! - 3 (runner up: 4)
Roto - 4 (runner up: 3)
Rye - 4 (runner up: 3)
smittenkitten - 3
Heath - 3 (Runner up: 1)
DK - 3 or 4
Linus - 3
Jess - ???
Flying Mullet - 3 (Runner up: 4)

---

So basically, we're candidate 3, unless we have any major objections from others and votes are changed. I think we should have our candidate chosen definitely by an hour to the task deadline, just to be safe. :jess:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rye

So basically, we're candidate 3, unless we have any major objections from others and votes are changed. I think we should have our candidate chosen definitely by an hour to the task deadline, just to be safe. :jess:

---

Yeah, that's probably a good idea. Might as well have our candidate chosen as soon as possible - we largely agree with each other anyway, so there haven't really been any issues.

I'm still waiting to see what Jess is going to post, though.

What happened to Jess? Does she have narcolepsy and fall asleep mid-post?

Jess wrote a really long post and then IE decided to error and restart. I'm going to have to re-write. :weep:

Edit:

Okay, let’s try again in short:

I was originally leaning towards Candidate 4, because I think that the general section of the forum is much more active in comparison to the gaming forums. However, both candidates are inactive in one area of the forum and this can easily be fixed.

Both candidates seem like they would make decent CKs, and it is difficult because we only have 5/6 lines of information to base our decision on. It could be easier if we had more information and could look at previous posts – but we’ll have to make do with what we’ve got.

I think it really depends on what way you look at as for what candidate I would choose. It seems like most people are looking at this as if we’re the only group of staff, and if this is the way we’re looking at it then I would go for candidate 3 because our group seems to have a fair few people that are similar to candidate 4, and I don’t think that the staff should be made up of just one type of person. We need to go for somebody who would bring something new to the table. If I was looking at this from a current staff point of view; I think that there are more Candidate 3s and would go for Candidate 4 because I don’t think there are many staffers like Candidate 4.

Rye, smitten, Jess and myself were just chatting in #teamfruity and we were thinking that we should view this decision as an addition to the current staff members and not as if we are the staff. We figured we should make that distinction because several of us feel that 3/4 will work well/poorly depending upon which staff they're working with. If anyone strongly feels that we should view this as we are the staff, please say so.

If anyone wants to change their vote, please do. If we're looking at current staff, I would like to change my vote to Candidate 4.

Also, come to #teamfruity!

Okay how about we stop thinking about what's good and bad about the candidates because I think we have established what their advantages and disadvantages are. We could talk about which candidate will make Eoff better and what Eoff needs at this current moment. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smittenkitten

We could talk about ... what Eoff needs at this current moment. :)

---

More cowbell, obviously.

But yes, I agree we need to look at EoFF. That's why I think it's important that we come to a consensus on which staff we are promoting into as Candidate 3 and 4 will fit into the two staff structures very differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smittenkitten

We could talk about ... what Eoff needs at this current moment. :)

---

More cowbell, obviously.

But yes, I agree we need to look at EoFF. That's why I think it's important that we come to a consensus on which staff we are promoting into as Candidate 3 and 4 will fit into the two staff structures very differently.

---

You and that cowbell. :rolleyes2

Yes we need to look at Eoff. Getting a new Cid's Knight isn't just for the staff to get a new buddy but to make Eoff a better place and hopefullly add something extra. We need to find that Candidate that Eoff needs right now. I think that Eoff before the Eoff CK Contest is well sorry to say it but rather dull. It use to be so lively and everything was happening at once only a couple of years ago. We need someone who's lively and full of bright ideas. :)

Agreed. If we are looking at the current staff I think Candidate 4 is a better choice. If we were the staffers I would vote for Candidate 3 as I think several of us are "zany" like Candidate 4.

What really bugs me is that Candidate 5 has many ideas but has two really bad disadvantages. Eoff really needs ideas. As for the liveliness Candidate 4 is the winner in that section. If only there was someone with Candidates 5's ideas, Candidate 4's liveliness and Candidates 3's respect and gaming obsession. ^__^

That would make things too easy. ;)

I actually think that Candidate 5 was dismissed too early. As I said before, just because somebody shies away from confrontation on a personal level it doesn't mean that they would do the same on a professional level. Many people adapt to suit their roles if they have a job to do and responsibilities. However, the periods of next-to-no activity probably would have made them lose out in the end anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

Rye, smitten, Jess and myself were just chatting in #teamfruity and we were thinking that we should view this decision as an addition to the current staff members and not as if we are the staff. We figured we should make that distinction because several of us feel that 3/4 will work well/poorly depending upon which staff they're working with. If anyone strongly feels that we should view this as we are the staff, please say so.

If anyone wants to change their vote, please do. If we're looking at current staff, I would like to change my vote to Candidate 4.

Also, come to #teamfruity!

---

In Del Murder's first post it says that we have to act as the staff, which implies that we should view the new candidate as an addition to our hypothetical staff. Maybe I'm wrong, though?

Part of Del's post:

Quote:

---

Congratulations! You are now part of the staff! Hypothetically, at least. For this task your group will act as the staff, and you must come together to make an important decision...the very same decision that the current staff is trying to make right now.

---

..and, I have no idea how this IRC chat thing works?

EDIT: Just saw the post where he said it's up to us again. I don't care whether or not we're selecting one for our hypothetical staff or the current staff. I love diversity and think it's very important and also essential to a staff of any kind - so, if we're making this decision based on the fact that we're selecting one for the current staff, which it seems we are, my vote'll also have to go to candidate 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jess

That would make things too easy. ;)

I actually think that Candidate 5 was dismissed too early. As I said before, just because somebody shies away from confrontation on a personal level it doesn't mean that they would do the same on a professional level. Many people adapt to suit their roles if they have a job to do and responsibilities. However, the periods of next-to-no activity probably would have made them lose out in the end anyway.

---

Totally agree I thought 5 was great because he/she had great ideas which is what I think we need. What are your thoughts on what Eoff needs? :mog:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breine

In Del Murder's first post it says that we have to act as the staff, which implies that we should view the new candidate as an addition to our hypothetical staff. Maybe I'm wrong, though?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Linus

Questions for Jeff Probst:
1. Are we choosing these candidates based on the current Cid's Knights, or a hypothetical staff? =)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Question 1 is left up to you.
You choose one person only.

---

For you Briene~

I think Candidate 5 would make a great Recognized Member, but not a Cid's Knight. I would rather promote someone that shows they will take a stand and aren't worried about always being everyone's friend, because that's what moderators have to be able to do. I don't see Candidate 5 doing this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breine

..and, I have no idea how this IRC chat thing works?

---

Go to chat and log in with a screen name. Once the Java applet is loaded, type in or copy/paste/duh "/join #teamfruity" and it will open a chat window and you'll join the chat room.

I've been acting on an interpretation similar to Breine's. The situation provided to us is that we are the staff. As such, I've been viewing the candidates as how they can contribute to our group, not the real group of Knights.

Assuming this is meant to be an addition to our staff, I'm sticking with my vote for candidate three.

Assuming we are meant to choose an addition to the real EoFF staff, then I definitely recognize the merits of candidate four and would definitely support his election.

Perhaps we might be able to get some clarification as to how we were intended to understand this situation as it was presented by Del? Wow, I'm slow. ; ;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smittenkitten

What are your thoughts on what Eoff needs? :mog:

---

I don't think that it is down to the staff alone to give EoFF what it needs. I don't think the EoFF community should rely on the staff to inject EoFF with fun and new ideas, because anybody can get involved and try to do so. I'm looking at this purely from who I think would make a good moderator.

Edit: Ouch! if you look at smittenkitten's last post, Del said it is left up to us. I think we can interpret it in either way. However, I think we should all use the same interpretation as to what candidate we choose. I don't mind which. :jess:
_________

Okay, so we are holding a vote as to what way we are going to interpret this, as our own group as staff or as the current staff.

I'm voting for current staff and here's my reasoning: We don't know what each of us would be like as CKs. Whereas we do know what the current staff are like.

Vote count:
Jess: Current Staff
Flying Mullet: Current Staff
Rye: Current Staff
Ouch!: Hypothetical Staff
Breine: Hypothetical Staff
smittenkitten: Hypothetical Staff
Roto13: Current Staff

Yes, the majority of us thus far are viewing this as current staff, and by association, a lot of us have changed our votes to Candidate 4, if we weren't set on them already.

Please, post your vote changes accordingly!

Assuming we are electing a Knight for the current EoFF staff, I will accordingly change my vote to candidate four.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ouch!

Assuming we are electing a Knight for the current EoFF staff, I will accordingly change my vote to candidate four.

---

Me too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ouch!

Assuming we are electing a Knight for the current EoFF staff, I will accordingly change my vote to candidate four.

---

Same here.

Now the confusion of whether we're choosing a CK for the current staff or hypothetical staff is cleared up, and we've voted to go with the current staff: I'm firmly placing my vote on Candidate 4. :jess:

Team Fruity's New Vote tally, based on our decision to view this as current staff. A lot have people have changed their vote based on this. This is because we feel that if we consider this challenge for current staff, a Candidate 4 would definitely be the best fit.

:ichigo:

Rye - 4
Roto - 4
Ouch - Changed to 4
Flying Mullet: Changed to 4
DK - Still 3 or 4
Linus - 3, we don't know if he's changing
Jess - 4
sk - 4
Heath - 3, we don't know if he's changing
Breine - 4

It looks like we've gone for 4! Let's see what the rest say.

Okay I change my vote from earlier, I think I posted my vote too early. As I've said before I think that Eoff needs to be more livelier and needs some fun. That is why I am going for Candidate 4 as of now.

Vote
#4

As FM so eloquently put it:

[17:00] Flying: so unless some major, unforseen turn of events occurs, it sounds like we're four

We'll have our official decision up in due time. :]

Except we're not four, we're choosing four.

Gotta love chatroom "gramer".

I think I'll stick with my original feeling of 3, but either or works fine for me.

I was thinking of both cases in all honesty. I'll stick with three because that's - personality wise - what I think is best. However I'll change my secondary vote for 4 because I feel it would be more appropriate on both staffs than #1 (veterans - I feel - is fairly well represented on both staffs).

Edit: Oh, we're not using secondary votes any longer. In which case I'm perfectly happy with number 4 but 3 is my preferred candidate.

There we go. :P I'm glad you guys see it my way. xP

After posting initial observations of the individual candidates, Team Fruity was easily able to eliminate candidates two and five from the running. Candidate number two, we decided, might make a good Knight in the future; however, since we agreed that, for the most part, he seemed like a less experienced version of candidate four, we decided it was best to put him in the back of our minds, perhaps for a future appointment. Most of us believe candidate five would serve as a fantastic moderator if not for his tendency to shy away from confrontation. While he may make a fantastic addition to the Site Staff, we believe that his passive nature would interfere with his ability to enforce the rules.

It was then brought to our attention that perhaps we should first consider at what the remaining candidates might add to the existing group of Cid’s Knights. By analyzing how each of the remaining candidates would fit into a group, we became split on candidates three and four. As a whole, we felt candidate one did not have as much to offer to a group as candidates three and four.

This approach, however, sparked another debate; do we assume that we are electing the candidates to the currently existing group or to our hypothetical group of ten? Many felt that candidate three would offer more to our own group (as we, as a whole, seem to lack strong activity in the gaming fora) while candidate four would offer more to the current staff (which seem to have less candidate four type members). After lengthy debating (included in the attachment), we decided it would be best to elect a candidate for the current group of Knights.

After making this decision, it came down to a simple manner of voting. We ended up with a vote of seven for candidate four, two for candidate three, and one abstaining due to a lack of presence at the tallying, although both proponents for candidate three agreed that candidate four would be a good second choice. We feel that the staff has a fair number of members similar to candidate three already, and while he would certainly be a suitable addition to the staff, he would not be able to offer much that is not already present. While activity in the gaming fora may be a weakness in our group, we think the current forum staff has this well covered already.

Four, on the other hand, with his light-hearted, “jokester” nature will be able to serve as a sort of liaison for the staff. As an already well-liked member across the boards, we hope he would help brighten the place, likely by acting as a proponent of more events and other activities to encourage a unified community at EoFF. While his lack of activity in the gaming fora may be a slight against him, we believe this is a fault easily change. We also chose not to hold his “anti-staff” past against him; the past is past and since the member has proven to have outgrown this phase, we see no reason to recognize it as a fault.

The Final Tally
Breine: 4
DK: 3
Flying Mullet: 4
Heath: 3
Jess: 4
Linus: 3?
Ouch!: 4
Roto13: 4
Rye: 4
smittenkitten: 4

Majority rules; Team Fruity selects Candidate Four.

Well spoken(written) Ouch. :)

Don't forget the attachment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

Well spoken(written) Ouch. :)

Don't forget the attachment.

---

It'll be there in a second. =P

Excellently written, Ouch! Super English major FTW~ :bigsmile:

Good summary on our decision Ouch. I think it's time for a good nap now. :cat:

Great summary, Ouch.

Good work, guys.

Yes I think everyone has done well in this round. *gives everyone snugs* Ten minutes to go! I should so be sleeping by now. :p

Yes, we all did a really great job. I'm so happy that :ichigo: Team Fruity :ichigo: ended up being all that I hoped it to be and more. We should all be so proud. :jess:

That is Round 3 part 2 officially closed, everyone should have a party in their confessionals. ^__^

So that's that, then. :P

Good work, everybody. :jess: