Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 71

Thread: Activity Levels, if you don't use it, you lose it.

  1. #16
    Nameleon. Huckleberry Quin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    These mountains are made of rainbows.
    Posts
    20,009
    Blog Entries
    3
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Simply for the sake of tidiness. If there's a document on my computer that I don't use, I delete it.

  2. #17
    Gold is the new black Goldenboko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,137
    Articles
    39
    Blog Entries
    1
    Contributions
    • Former Editor
    • Hosted the Ciddies

    Default

    If that is the case then see back to my previous post and make some sort of efficient way of unstaff-ing after time with the reinstatement upon request so the staff can worry about real community issues. But apparently demotion from lack of activity is "ridiculous". You can't have it both ways Quin.

  3. #18
    Nameleon. Huckleberry Quin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    These mountains are made of rainbows.
    Posts
    20,009
    Blog Entries
    3
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Demotion doesn't constitute punishment. I said that punishing them is ridiculous; they should just be demoted.

  4. #19
    Slothstronaut Slothy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    I'm in space
    Posts
    13,472
    Blog Entries
    27
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    This is going to be kind of boring because I'll say I mostly agree with Raistlin, Shorty, Quin, etc. I guess that's what I get for needing sleep. Give me more time and I'll have that removed.

    But I agree that there shouldn't be any hard and fast rules about when someone is removed from staff. I do think it should happen if they're inactive for an extended period of time if only so members can know who is currently on staff and available and not AWOL. And it should be people willing to grow the community who are on staff. Policing the forums is just one, I think, very small part of what they should be doing. Maybe it would be all right to have staff who just do that, but I think there are sufficient numbers to handle it. I'd rather see people who are going to contribute to the forums, host events, write articles, or whatever else they may do to help keep activity up. Without activity and new members this place will die, and staff should be taking the lead there. Not that they need to participate in everything (though some more census participation would be awesome ), but as long as they're doing something around here and are visible in their role as staff I'm cool with it.

    As to your comments Boko, I'm not sure that the process of removing someone from staff for inactivity is as difficult and time consuming as you think it would be. I'd imagine it could be as simple as this:

    Staff A hasn't logged in in three months -> email staff A about situation
    Did staff A reply? Yes -> find out when or if they'll be coming back.
    No -> vote on whether to remove them from staff until they return. If vote successful, inform staff A.

    It shouldn't be something that requires a ton of debate or a hard and fast rule. Staff are going to know if another staff member is unusually quiet for an extended period of time, so how much discussion and decision making does there really need to be? It's not like it's a punishment or anything, it's just a matter of keeping the list of current, active staff up to date.

  5. #20
    Shorty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    23,633
    Articles
    11
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Boko: I don't think that staff debating about it's own inactivity is a waste of time and efficiency. As far as I can see, as long as this place maintains activity and continues to grow, no one should care how time is spent in the staffing forum or what is discussed.

    Staffing isn't a chore. It's supposed to be fun. Contributing is supposed to be fun. If we're constantly worried about how efficient we're being, what's the point of being here? Post, boost activity, make things happen, have fun. We're not running a viking ship here.

  6. #21
    Slothstronaut Slothy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    I'm in space
    Posts
    13,472
    Blog Entries
    27
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty View Post
    We're not running a viking ship here.
    I want it on the record that I think EOFF would be orders of magnitude more awesome if it were a viking ship.

  7. #22
    Not responsible for WWI Citizen Bleys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    The Wired
    Posts
    8,502
    Articles
    7
    Blog Entries
    60

    FFXIV Character

    Bleys Maynard (Sargatanas)
    Contributions
    • Former Administrator
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Let me tell you a story about the greatest job I ever had.

    It was easy work and rewarding; the pay was good, and I knew my boss had my back at all times. They were so good to us that I actually looked forward to going into work each night. My performance was excellent, because it takes very little effort to do a good job when you're happy to be there and not stressed out. The company was an industry leader at the time, and rolling in money. Had I won the lottery in those days, I'd have continued working, that's how nice it was.

    Then the owner died.

    The company was taken over by a committee of people more interested in things like "efficiency" and the bottom line than keeping its employees happy.

    The competition promptly caught up and now we're struggling to stay in business. There are high-profile layoffs every month. I dread going into work each day because the committees have removed everything that's rewarding about my job. If I win the lottery now, I will commission a nearby candy store to make a 10 pound bag of chocolate dicks so that I can slam it down on my boss's table and tell her "I quit. Eat a bag of dicks."

    I want EoFF to be like my job used to be, not like it is today. "Firing" unpaid staff members for not doing enough work sounds like the kind of idea that Ted would have shot down instantly, but the committee would embrace with open arms.

  8. #23
    Gold is the new black Goldenboko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,137
    Articles
    39
    Blog Entries
    1
    Contributions
    • Former Editor
    • Hosted the Ciddies

    Default

    If you can really make that analogy with a straight face there's really no point of arguing with you.

  9. #24

  10. #25
    Slothstronaut Slothy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    I'm in space
    Posts
    13,472
    Blog Entries
    27
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    I don't see how his analogy is anything but apt.

  11. #26
    Gold is the new black Goldenboko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,137
    Articles
    39
    Blog Entries
    1
    Contributions
    • Former Editor
    • Hosted the Ciddies

    Default

    To start, painting the words "efficiency" and "bottom-line" to be dangerous, bad, scary words is just plain incorrect. It's silly fear-mongering, "Don't listen, he doesn't believe in fun."

    And to mention the proposal of automatically unstaffing inactive staff with the option to regain their title upon request, even near the layoff of paid employees who worked for their livelihood at their jobs is just plain disrespectful to people who have been in that situation.

  12. #27
    Shorty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    23,633
    Articles
    11
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    I think you're picking apart his post too much. Fearmongering is the opposite of what I'd use to describe the point Bleys is trying to make. I'm sure he also knows the distinction between getting booted from a volunteer position on an online board versus losing your means on income in the real world and meant no disrespect by his analogy.

    What does the efficiency of staff mean? What's the bottom line of staff? I'm going to agree with Quin and say that you're looking at this as too much of a business model, which it is not. It's a community. Everyone is part of it. Staff is a part of it, and they happen to have their own sub-community. It's not a business, there's no direct chain of command here. Staff is staff collectively - everyone's opinions get to be heard and listened to with respect.

  13. #28
    Slothstronaut Slothy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    I'm in space
    Posts
    13,472
    Blog Entries
    27
    Contributions
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboko View Post
    To start, painting the words "efficiency" and "bottom-line" to be dangerous, bad, scary words is just plain incorrect. It's silly fear-mongering, "Don't listen, he doesn't believe in fun."
    I disagree. Perhaps he's having a bit of fun with his analogy, but he's making the point that happy people are more efficient people. A reality I've encountered many a time. He's against the idea of being too focused on efficiency and forgetting this place is supposed to be fun. On a side note, aside from the prospect of staff members disappearing I'm not sure why there's a lot of talk of efficiency going on at all. Certainly we want the front site and news articles running in a somewhat efficient and timely manner, but as far as the forums this isn't a business and we aren't producing a product. Where is the downside to inactive staff aside from it being kind of confusing?

    And to mention the proposal of automatically unstaffing inactive staff with the option to regain their title upon request, even near the layoff of paid employees who worked for their livelihood at their jobs is just plain disrespectful to people who have been in that situation.
    Strange. I don't think I felt disrespected by his analogy. My emotion chip must be malfunctioning. I honestly think you're taking his analogy a bit too seriously. He's not actually saying that unstaffing someone here is comparable to firing people who need their job to live. He's just saying that a happy staff working in a relatively stress free environment are a more productive staff.

    Feel free to correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth Bleys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shorty View Post
    I'm going to agree with Quin and say that you're looking at this as too much of a business model, which it is not. It's a community. Everyone is part of it. Staff is a part of it, and they happen to have their own sub-community. It's not a business, there's no direct chain of command here. Staff is staff collectively - everyone's opinions get to be heard and listened to with respect.
    Indeed. If anything we're more of a hippie commune with a somewhat formalized committee of people who maintain the community infrastructure and deal with ne'er do wells. It's like a socialist paradise here.

  14. #29
    Not responsible for WWI Citizen Bleys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    The Wired
    Posts
    8,502
    Articles
    7
    Blog Entries
    60

    FFXIV Character

    Bleys Maynard (Sargatanas)
    Contributions
    • Former Administrator
    • Former Cid's Knight

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivi22 View Post
    Feel free to correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth Bleys.
    Negative, you're correct.

  15. #30
    Famine Wolf Cid's Knight Sephex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    12,260
    Articles
    2
    Blog Entries
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen Bleys View Post
    Let me tell you a story about the greatest job I ever had.

    It was easy work and rewarding; the pay was good, and I knew my boss had my back at all times. They were so good to us that I actually looked forward to going into work each night. My performance was excellent, because it takes very little effort to do a good job when you're happy to be there and not stressed out. The company was an industry leader at the time, and rolling in money. Had I won the lottery in those days, I'd have continued working, that's how nice it was.

    Then the owner died.

    The company was taken over by a committee of people more interested in things like "efficiency" and the bottom line than keeping its employees happy.

    The competition promptly caught up and now we're struggling to stay in business. There are high-profile layoffs every month. I dread going into work each day because the committees have removed everything that's rewarding about my job. If I win the lottery now, I will commission a nearby candy store to make a 10 pound bag of chocolate dicks so that I can slam it down on my boss's table and tell her "I quit. Eat a bag of dicks."

    I want EoFF to be like my job used to be, not like it is today. "Firing" unpaid staff members for not doing enough work sounds like the kind of idea that Ted would have shot down instantly, but the committee would embrace with open arms.

    Nearly the same thing has been happening to my company for years now, and within the last year, they have created more problems rather than fixing them. The difference between the story Bleys posted and mine is that my company is freaking out because we had the best year ever last year, by far. The owners/managers have good intentions, but all they have been doing is wasting time by solving problems that don't actually exist by revising policies like attendance (PLEASE NOTE THIS IS ONE AND A MINOR EXAMPLE). There are many people at my place of work that have been going in EVERY DAY without missing a beat and not being late. It is actually very rare to see someone walk in late. If they do, it is usually some temp they are going to lay off anyway. But somehow attendance was such an issue that upper management felt it necessary to make it more restrictive? Oh, and the revision doesn't apply to all employees? ...Okay.

    The problem with my company is that it's trying way too hard to outdo last year's numbers, so while they have the right idea of making changes to achieve that goal, they keep trying many different ideas. Again, fine, until it is basically the owners/managers trying random things and seeing what sticks. There have been so many meetings involving every employee in my building that has wasted so much time that there is no way we will top last year. We will still have a good year, but they have changed too much.

    Anyway, I think the same type of attitude can backfire for this forum. Bouncing around ideas on how to improve something is fine, but getting caught up in the details and arguing like that will only make the rest of the staff miserable.

    What Vivi suggested earlier is fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivi22
    Staff A hasn't logged in in three months -> email staff A about situation
    Did staff A reply? Yes -> find out when or if they'll be coming back.
    No -> vote on whether to remove them from staff until they return. If vote successful, inform staff A.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •