Round 3 Part 2 - Team 1 (Team Fruity)

[Rye]

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.

[Ouch!]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Rye]

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?

[Heath]

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]

Jess' two cents:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Linus]

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. =)

[Rye]

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.

[Del Murder]

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

[Ouch!]

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.

[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.

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. :]

[Ouch!]

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.

[Rye]

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

[Heath]

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.

[Linus]

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.

[Breine]

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.