Round 3 Part 2 - Team 2 (Team Awesome)

[Bahamut2000X]

The ones I like are 1 and 3 the best.

2 I dislike because of the spamming and immature attitude. Sure they might get better, but they might get worse or not change either. Their too new still so I think more time to let them be on the forums is needed.

4 I wouldn't mind on staff, they seem like they will do a good job, but already looking at our group I think they will probably just be a rehash of what we already have covered well.

5 I already said I disliked because they were non-confrontational, which I feel a mod of any forums needs to be ready to handle. Sometimes closing a members thread for spam won't go over well. Remember that 'ATTN: AZAR!' junk for not that long ago? Closing over and over won't fix the problem, eventually you just have to talk to the person and let them know what they did wrong and why moderative action was taken.

[Dolentrean]

Alright, I have given my reasons, but to make it a bit easier for everyone to see, this is the list of my favorites in order of top to bottom.

2
5
1
3
4

We also have to think about who would work best with all of us, I mean we are the staff, I think we should all be at least somewhat in agreement over who we want on the staff. I think this ranking system is useful to get an idea of where everyone is at, but it shouldn’t be a decisive factor in who we pick.

[qwertysaur]

I'll update the tally with Dolentreans and ed's changes. If you want to give your own column it's own number rating from 0-5 feel free to change your own. I also added colors.

ljkkjlcm9 - qwertyxsora - Goldenboko - Rase - edczxcvbnm - Takara - Dolentrean - Bahamut2000X - oddler- IBPengwynZ- Total

Candidate 1 - 5 2 2 4 1.5 4 3 5 _ _ = 26.5
Candidate 2 - 4 3 1 2 5.0 2 5 0 _ _ = 22
Candidate 3 - 2 5 4 5 1.5 5 2 5 _ _ = 29.5
Candidate 4 - 1 1 3 1 0.0 1 1 0 _ _ = 8
Candidate 5 - 3 4 5 3 4.5 3 4 0 _ _ = 26.5

Bahamut says he supports 1 and 3, so I assume he wants to fill in 0's for the rest.

[ljkkjlcm9]

I don't think anyone is saying that's how we'll decide. But that's how we can tell which candidates are favored and discuss the strengths and weakness of them each better.

THE JACKEL

[qwertysaur]

My biggest problem with 1 and 2 is the whole oldbie/newbie rift. I like 3 and 5 because they both bridge the gap between old and new members, which is something i think the forum needs as a whole.

[Pant Leg Eater from the Bad World]

Sorry guys. I've been gone most of the day, so I only got a few words in before.


Candidate 1 - 3
I don't really like how this candidate is not very interactive with the newer members. That can be fairly important. And as to this member only really posting in GC and Feedback, well, that says nothing to how much this candidate browses other sections and just doesn't post.

Candidate 2 - 2
The immaturity and spamming is obviously the issue here. That is not becoming of a CK at all. While I like everything else about this candidate, that just weighs to heavily for me.

Candidate 3 - 5
I find this to be an excellent candidate. Being active in the General forums is not necessary at all. They are active where they are, which happens to be the gaming forums. I have no problem with them not participating in events. It is not a requirement to do so, nor does that stop them from being part of the community, as it said this was a well respected member.

Candidate 4 - 4
This candidate is extremely active and friendly. Used to be anti-staff, but this member changed, therefore there is no longer an issue there.
There is nothing wrong with a jokester. It does say that this member never goes to the gaming forums though. I firmly believe that any member of these forums who has been here some time and was bestowed the honor of CK would focus on their duties. So, while they never go to the gaming forums as a regular member, as a CK they would know their duty and likely would begin monitoring everywhere.

Candidate 5 - 4
A well liked member who's threads are typically of good standing. This would be an excellent candidate if it weren't for the occasional low levels of inactivity and non-confrontational attitude. But like I said for #4, I believe that being a CK would inevitably change that. Maybe not the inactivity, because that could be for any number of personal reasons. Anyways, if the candidate wasn't doing enough, I am positive that the other staff would point it out and this candidate would learn.

Personally, I think 3 is the very best choice, hands down. But I would rather have someone like 4 become CK. And I find myself to be very similar to 5.

[Dolentrean]

I'm suppressed that you ranked 2 so low on being spammy and immature, yet game 4 a high ranking even though he was anti-staff and had confrontations with them, that normally shows immaturity, and that you would expect them to change once they got the title of CK, and not expect 2 to change as well.

I am not knocking your choices, just think its kind of strange.

[Pant Leg Eater from the Bad World]

I'm suppressed that you ranked 2 so low on being spammy and immature, yet game 4 a high ranking even though he was anti-staff and had confrontations with them, that normally shows immaturity, and that you would expect them to change once they got the title of CK, and not expect 2 to change as well.

I am not knocking your choices, just think its kind of strange.

This decision was mostly based on my perception of immature. There are some members here who are extreme jokesters, but I would never think to call them immature. When I see immature, I see it as someone who doesn't present themselves well in their posts. Such as always using 'leetspeak', for one example. Or someone who is obviously caught up in themselves and all their glory. I'm not sure if that explained it very well, but I see a large difference in the two.

And don't worry about knocking my choices. We need to be critiquing to find the right choice.

[oddler]

ljkkjlcm9 - qwertyxsora - Goldenboko - Rase - edczxcvbnm - Takara - Dolentrean - Bahamut2000X - oddler- IBPengwynZ- Total

Candidate 1 - 5 2 2 4 1.5 4 3 5 4 3 = 33.5
Candidate 2 - 4 3 1 2 5.0 2 5 0 3 2 = 27
Candidate 3 - 2 5 4 5 1.5 5 2 5 3 5 = 37.5
Candidate 4 - 1 1 3 1 0.0 1 1 0 2 4 = 14
Candidate 5 - 3 4 5 3 4.5 3 4 0 4 4 = 34.5

I've added my scores in there for the candidates.

Just a couple things overall about them that I see:

Candidate 1 - Well respected by veterans. Hasn't had interaction with newer members but that doesn't mean that this person is against new members. Posts mainly in General and Feedback. This doesn't mean they don't post other places and actually implies that they post everywhere. Plus, they're moderately active. SMART UNIQUE PERSONALITY AND OUTLOOK. Key, key, key. Why would we want to miss out on a member like this?

Candidate 2 - Posts a lot. Good relations with new members but not noticed by veterans? I'm not sure if that's alluding to possible grudges coming up after this person's possible promotion or if it's just saying that this person isn't in the limelight much. Active... and spammy. Not a good combination if you ask me. Normally, I would hold high activity in high regards but when you mix it with a pretty habitual tendency to spam, it's sort of a double-edged sword. Immature, also. Kinda knocks this person down a bit, in my opinion.

Candidate 3 - Active in Gaming, not so much in General. Respected for gaming help and advice. Low event participation. This person doesn't sound like moderator material to me at all, to be honest. Sure, moderators are there to help with the forums but there's not much in a moderator's job about being knowledgeable about games. In promoting this person, the forum may actually lose a great game guru in exchange for a half-decent Cid's Knight.

Candidate 4 - A top poster in General Chat and on good terms with everyone. Non-serious and a jokester. Never visits certain forums. Eek. Red flag. If this person is going to maintain a tunnel vision view on the forums and not take things seriously, they're not the type of person I see being a moderator.

Candidate 5 - A strong part of the community and active throughout. Comes up with fresh ideas, events, and threads. Upbeat. All good stuff until we come to the "shies away from confrontation" part. Right? Not necessarily, I think. Every single Cid's Knight doesn't have to have the in-your-face thing down. Weighing all the good things this person could bring to the table against this one "bad" thing... I think the pros outweigh the con.

Now, as far as you guys were talking about our posting or activity habits, here are mine: I post a lot in General Chat. I'm active in every forum, though. I use New Posts and read through all areas of the forum so I'm all over. Never know when you're going to catch some bored guy post porn in a remote corner.

Overall, I think Candidate 4 can be safely dropped from consideration. I think this rating system was a good idea for us to get going. We might be able to use it to knock off one more candidate but after that I'd say we better rely on debate.

Drop Candidate 4?

[Pant Leg Eater from the Bad World]

Yes, I think we should drop 4. 4 was never a top choice for anybody, even me, and I am ever the optimist. I'm all for it.

[ljkkjlcm9]

I think it's really down to 1, 3, or 5

I'm gonna post my opinion on the 3 the more I looked

Candidate 1
The thing that gets me about the candidate the more I look at them, is they're is nothing really weak, but nothing really strong about them either. They're pretty much moderate in every aspect, except for how long they've been here.
the negative/positive was sorta combined here

Candidate 3
negative
Not participating in forum events seems to be everyone's gripe with this guy. Sure, I can see that, but again, how many people here always participate in them? Also says much less so active, in the general areas.
positive
He's extremely active in the gaming areas. Being much less active in the general might still be normal person active. If the average is say 500, and this guy posts 1,000 in gaming, but posts 400 in general, that's much less active, but still active. On top of that, he is well respected, and gives out advice. Someone you can look up to

Candidate 5
Alright, the more I look at this guy, the more I see his role in this forum. This guy is always coming up with new events. He also shy's away from confrontation. I say let this guy do exactly what he's good at. Let him come up with the cool events for the site to do. Making this person an admin could cut back majorly into this, and end up hurting the site more than helping.

THE JACKEL

[Dolentrean]

Alright, after talking to The JACKAL and looking over the candidates more I think that 1 and 3 have a lot of potential, I also think 5 is a good candidate, but I am looking at 1 and 3 because they are active in opposite areas.

As we are looking for someone to join our staff we should look at where we are most active in so we can see where we need to beef up our activity, if we are mostly active in the General Areas of the forum than that makes 3 look like a stronger applicant, if we are strong everywhere than that makes 1 look more useful because as oddler said he has a smart unique personality and outlook that not many others have. That is something that could be invaluable in a staff.

Thank you oddler for pointing that out.

[Goldenboko]

This sucks, I have to go to school sick today I'm going to voice my opinion before I go, and sick or well, I will make it back here before the end.

I only have the time to write up one opinion or I'll be late

Candidate 1 -

* Longtime member who has been around for many years. +1 This is good, we know we have a member who won't be up and leaving on us.
* Well known and respected by most of the veterans, but has not had much interaction with most of the the newer members. 0 For our staff, this wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, considering we don't have that many older members, but seeing as newer members (0-2 years here), tend to make up the general populace, its not really a plus. Also if this where the regular staff we'd already have plenty of old members
* Posts mainly in the general categories and Feedback.0. We have lots of people watching general and feedback in the real, and our staff.
* Has a smart unique personality and outlook that not many others have. +1 This is good, its always nice to have new views. The only possible question are his views radically different in which they would just get in the way, but that doesn't look like the case by this description.
* Forum activity is currently moderate. +1 moderate activity, nothing wrong with that

Overall score. 4

[oddler]

Candidate 1 -

* Longtime member who has been around for many years. +1 This is good, we know we have a member who won't be up and leaving on us.
* Well known and respected by most of the veterans, but has not had much interaction with most of the the newer members. 0 For our staff, this wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, considering we don't have that many older members, but seeing as newer members (0-2 years here), tend to make up the general populace, its not really a plus. Also if this where the regular staff we'd already have plenty of old members
* Posts mainly in the general categories and Feedback.0. We have lots of people watching general and feedback in the real, and our staff.
* Has a smart unique personality and outlook that not many others have. +1 This is good, its always nice to have new views. The only possible question are his views radically different in which they would just get in the way, but that doesn't look like the case by this description.
* Forum activity is currently moderate. +1 moderate activity, nothing wrong with that

Overall score. 4

I like this format. It's a nice way for us to elaborate on each part of the candidates. Does anyone have a problem with doing this for Candidates 1, 2, 3, and 5? I think it'll help us start up some conversation as to what traits we're really looking for, too.

[Bahamut2000X]

I see a lot of negatives about 1 being an oldbie, which I don't think that's too bad of a thing I'm a little partial I guess though because 1 is most like me (minus that not interacting with newbie thing). I mean let's just look at it for a second at our staff. Me and ed are the 2 oldbies here. Beyond that the gap in years is about 3 I figure in newbies and oldbies. I would say an oldbie to help balance out the differences between our gap in years is something to consider.

The only thing not making me out right say 1 is 3 is a big gaming forum person, which we seem to lack a little bit more then GC.