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

[Goldenboko]

Staff activity

• What are appropriate activity levels? How should participation be encouraged and lack of participation be disciplined?

This has always been a topic of big debate and I feel the above saying is the most appropriate way to deal with titles. Obviously it doesn't have to be so cold, regulations do not need to be absolute, but rules should be in place. I know that I might be damning myself by saying this, but if a staff member of any type is inactive for a certain amount of time the title should be removed by other Staff members to keep an accurate assessment of Staff for membership and for Staff Organization itself.

Obviously life comes up, any staff member de-staffed for inactivity should be able to request staff-ship back little to no questions asked, but staff shouldn't just be a title it should mean something. They should be the current leaders of the forum.

Having a policy for this (we'll say x amount of posts in x amount of months for now) would eliminate a lot of things. First off, activity worries at all when picking a new Staff Member! Afraid he or she will disappear? That's fine, (s)he will just lose his or her title. Also, it will make it clearcut and emotionless when old staff needs to be turned into new staff. No one wants to be the crier for new leadership, an activity policy will allow this to not be called upon by a single person, but by the rules.

[Citizen Bleys]

It shouldn't be tied to post count at all, that just encourages spamming. If there's nothing to say, the best thing to say is nothing. The board does, however, track the last login time. This would be a far better measurement.

[Goldenboko]

It shouldn't be tied to post count at all, that just encourages spamming. If there's nothing to say, the best thing to say is nothing. The board does, however, track the last login time. This would be a far better measurement.

My example was made in the entirety of two seconds, obviously it won't be a strict posting count, but I think posting does need to addressed somehow, what good is a staff member that logs in here and there and says nothing?

[Raistlin]

Lame, I was typing up this thread (BoB will understand why xD). Good thing I checked before I posted it! I'll just copy/paste

Being staff is not a job, and should not be considered a job. There are no minimum hours or required attendance. When EoFF becomes a job, it's really over. EoFF should be fun, and the staff should have fun. They should do work for EoFF because they want to, because they care about the place, and because they enjoy doing it. They should have been made staff in the first place because of that desire to improve EoFF. And each individual staff member is not required to do some of everything, thus allowing a diverse staff to choose the ways they help serve the EoFF community.

That being said, should inactivity be a justification for kicking someone out of staff?

In my opinion, being staff, while not a job, should not be some permanent right, either. It is not some award that you get for as long as you want, but a privilege that is earned -- and so should be able to be lost.

There are good reasons for periods of inactivity, and I think the staff should be extremely lenient about all good faith absences and excuses -- and the staff member would likely warrant every benefit of the doubt. But consistent inactivity or apathy over a period of months or more, without a sign of changing, should be addressed.

There are many, quiet actions the staff could take. The inactive staff member could be emailed some friendly concerns about if they're having any problems. Then maybe some gentle reminders about EoFF's existence. Then maybe a polite warning that the issue may be discussed in staff. And only then, the issue of maybe urging a "resignation" could be considered.

As an alternative, I suppose the staff member could simply be kept staff but replaced. I'm not sure if it makes all that much difference if there's 9 staff and 6 of them active, or just 6 active staff. My concern would be that the staff would be less likely to act to "replace" someone if they remained on staff.

Any thoughts on how to deal with inactive staff members?

Having a policy for this (we'll say x amount of posts in x amount of months for now) would eliminate a lot of things.

I would object to any quota system. I think the staff are mature enough adults to be able to decide each situation on its own merits while giving appropriate weight to any real-life excuses for inactivity (that rigid quotas can't fully account for). Number of posts should be a factor to consider, not some fixed standard.

[Shorty]

I'd like to elaborate a little more on this topic later when I have more time, but I think a responsible staffer should know at what point in time their position on staff is no longer important to them in their life and to question whether or not they feel the need to retain their title. It doesn't have to come down to the rest of staff giving you the boot because you aren't pulling your weight. As mentioned earlier in the thread there doesn't need to be a fixed quota on paper for threads it activity. We're all adults here. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you can't make as much time for this site as you'd like if that the case.

Staff should have a healthy new addition every once in a while. If it turns out that life happens and your activity is suffering because of that, maybe perhaps it would be best to take the high road and make room for someone who would like to contribute in your place.

[Raistlin]

Shorty: I think that is obviously the ideal outcome, and that is in fact what less caring staff members should be encouraged to do. The primary issue in this thread is what happens if someone doesn't take that high-road.

[Shorty]

Be that as it may, I still felt it was worth mentioning.

edit: on to the appropriate activity levels

Who's to say what the standard of activity should be? If you're active, you're active. If you're not, you're not. I feel like staff activity should have a hand in as many pots as it can - general forums, art forums, FF forums - hell, it would be nice to have more staffers in #eoff as well. Everyone can find something in common with these forums and even chat. If it's not your preference, that's fine. But more of a presence might boost members to be more active in those areas. It's a chance that can't hurt.

I can't think of a way staff should necessarily be "disciplined" for inactivity - maybe a few chances here and there because of business and life situations. Post counts shouldn't always be a relevent factor but say, as an example, a staff member has made ten posts in six months - that's a pretty prolonged amount of time to be giving chances for them to come back to being active again. School or testing starts up, work gets hectic, babies start popping out - these are all good reasons to maybe have a couple or even a few months of inactivity.

I think these things need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but to have all of staff aware that several months of little to no activity will find themselves a spot out of ranks.

[Quindiana Jones]

Lack of participation shouldn't be disciplined. That's ridiculous. As some have said above, if a staff member has consistently failed to fulfil their purpose and is showing no sign of rectifying that, then they should be removed from staff to make room for a member who is more willing or able to contribute.

In terms of activity, as long as a staff member can be seen to be doing something on the forum, by staff and non-staff alike, it's okay. Theoretically, I think it'd be find to have a CK who just mods the forums, contributes to the frontsite etc., and doesn't post at all. Obviously it'd be a good thing if they were an active member on top of an active staff member, but it's important to distinguish the two.

With regards to encouraging participation, there are two sides of the coin. As I said above, an acceptable CK is one who does their job and nothing else. In this sense, I don't think CKs need encouraging. You're either going to do what you've been chosen to do or you're not. If you do it, great, good job, thank you for helping with the site. If not, you get KILLED have those responsibilities taken from you. This might seem a little militant, but I just don't see the point in putting extra effort into rewarding duty. Presumably, CKs and Admins are in those positions because they want to help keep EoFF running smoothly, so knowing that they've worked towards that goal is its own reward. Plus, you have a nice shiny title that increases the size of your e-peen by up to 400%.

Of course, acceptable CKs aren't the best thing ever. It's much better to have an excellent CK who's active in the forums as a member as well as a moderator. One way to encourage this is to just alter the "qualifications" for Knighting, which is kind of what you do anyway. Round One was a perfect example of checking how interested or committed to the forum each participant was, so a refined version of that for non-competition CK decisions would definitely help with determining how active a member will be. I will add to and clarify this later today, but for now I have a work.

[Citizen Bleys]

Ultimately, this is not the sort of thing that can be hard-coded into stone tablets and followed slavishly. Whether or not to demote someone would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, not decided by some predetermined policy without taking reality into consideration.

[Quindiana Jones]

I'm working on the assumption that all things are done on a case by case basis.

[Goldenboko]

This is exactly the response I was expecting to get to this thread and I was extremist to prove a point. The mindset at eyeson is that of an overemphasis about who is on the staff at any given time by both the userbase and the staff.

I've taken just about every post to this, and highlighted out parts where members are openly ok with the staff spending a good chunk of time just sitting talking about who should "be in their ranks". General appalled-ness to someone just being unstaffed without relinquishing their title themselves. And talk of needing to unstaff someone, to staff someone as if its some social club.

QUOTE WALL

Lame, I was typing up this thread (BoB will understand why xD). Good thing I checked before I posted it! I'll just copy/paste

Being staff is not a job, and should not be considered a job. There are no minimum hours or required attendance. When EoFF becomes a job, it's really over. EoFF should be fun, and the staff should have fun. They should do work for EoFF because they want to, because they care about the place, and because they enjoy doing it. They should have been made staff in the first place because of that desire to improve EoFF. And each individual staff member is not required to do some of everything, thus allowing a diverse staff to choose the ways they help serve the EoFF community.

That being said, should inactivity be a justification for kicking someone out of staff?

In my opinion, being staff, while not a job, should not be some permanent right, either. It is not some award that you get for as long as you want, but a privilege that is earned -- and so should be able to be lost.

There are good reasons for periods of inactivity, and I think the staff should be extremely lenient about all good faith absences and excuses -- and the staff member would likely warrant every benefit of the doubt. But consistent inactivity or apathy over a period of months or more, without a sign of changing, should be addressed.

There are many, quiet actions the staff could take. The inactive staff member could be emailed some friendly concerns about if they're having any problems. Then maybe some gentle reminders about EoFF's existence. Then maybe a polite warning that the issue may be discussed in staff. And only then, the issue of maybe urging a "resignation" could be considered.

As an alternative, I suppose the staff member could simply be kept staff but replaced. I'm not sure if it makes all that much difference if there's 9 staff and 6 of them active, or just 6 active staff. My concern would be that the staff would be less likely to act to "replace" someone if they remained on staff.

Any thoughts on how to deal with inactive staff members?

Having a policy for this (we'll say x amount of posts in x amount of months for now) would eliminate a lot of things.

I would object to any quota system. I think the staff are mature enough adults to be able to decide each situation on its own merits while giving appropriate weight to any real-life excuses for inactivity (that rigid quotas can't fully account for). Number of posts should be a factor to consider, not some fixed standard.

I'd like to elaborate a little more on this topic later when I have more time, but I think a responsible staffer should know at what point in time their position on staff is no longer important to them in their life and to question whether or not they feel the need to retain their title. It doesn't have to come down to the rest of staff giving you the boot because you aren't pulling your weight. As mentioned earlier in the thread there doesn't need to be a fixed quota on paper for threads it activity. We're all adults here. There's nothing wrong with admitting that you can't make as much time for this site as you'd like if that the case.

Staff should have a healthy new addition every once in a while. If it turns out that life happens and your activity is suffering because of that, maybe perhaps it would be best to take the high road and make room for someone who would like to contribute in your place.

Be that as it may, I still felt it was worth mentioning.

edit: on to the appropriate activity levels

Who's to say what the standard of activity should be? If you're active, you're active. If you're not, you're not. I feel like staff activity should have a hand in as many pots as it can - general forums, art forums, FF forums - hell, it would be nice to have more staffers in #eoff as well. Everyone can find something in common with these forums and even chat. If it's not your preference, that's fine. But more of a presence might boost members to be more active in those areas. It's a chance that can't hurt.

I can't think of a way staff should necessarily be "disciplined" for inactivity - maybe a few chances here and there because of business and life situations. Post counts shouldn't always be a relevent factor but say, as an example, a staff member has made ten posts in six months - that's a pretty prolonged amount of time to be giving chances for them to come back to being active again. School or testing starts up, work gets hectic, babies start popping out - these are all good reasons to maybe have a couple or even a few months of inactivity.

I think these things need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but to have all of staff aware that several months of little to no activity will find themselves a spot out of ranks.

Lack of participation shouldn't be disciplined. That's ridiculous. As some have said above, if a staff member has consistently failed to fulfil their purpose and is showing no sign of rectifying that, then they should be removed from staff to make room for a member who is more willing or able to contribute.

In terms of activity, as long as a staff member can be seen to be doing something on the forum, by staff and non-staff alike, it's okay. Theoretically, I think it'd be find to have a CK who just mods the forums, contributes to the frontsite etc., and doesn't post at all. Obviously it'd be a good thing if they were an active member on top of an active staff member, but it's important to distinguish the two.

With regards to encouraging participation, there are two sides of the coin. As I said above, an acceptable CK is one who does their job and nothing else. In this sense, I don't think CKs need encouraging. You're either going to do what you've been chosen to do or you're not. If you do it, great, good job, thank you for helping with the site. If not, you get KILLED have those responsibilities taken from you. This might seem a little militant, but I just don't see the point in putting extra effort into rewarding duty. Presumably, CKs and Admins are in those positions because they want to help keep EoFF running smoothly, so knowing that they've worked towards that goal is its own reward. Plus, you have a nice shiny title that increases the size of your e-peen by up to 400%.

Of course, acceptable CKs aren't the best thing ever. It's much better to have an excellent CK who's active in the forums as a member as well as a moderator. One way to encourage this is to just alter the "qualifications" for Knighting, which is kind of what you do anyway. Round One was a perfect example of checking how interested or committed to the forum each participant was, so a refined version of that for non-competition CK decisions would definitely help with determining how active a member will be. I will add to and clarify this later today, but for now I have a work.

Ultimately, this is not the sort of thing that can be hard-coded into stone tablets and followed slavishly. Whether or not to demote someone would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, not decided by some predetermined policy without taking reality into consideration.

The mission statement of the entirety of the eyesonff staff should be "The upkeep of quality at Eyeson and the continued improving of the site." The first part of that being general moderating, making sure there aren't spam-bots, flame wars, etc., the second half, being for future success. Staff should be minimizing time spent deciding staff. Any time spent discussing their current makeup or deciding new members is not time spent on the previous two things. One can argue it is an investment but this isn't a site that can afford spending all of its time with a single investment as we currently do.

This policy shouldn't matter so long as there is some sort of policy. Whether it is "WE DON'T CARE HOW MANY STAFF WE HAVE AS LONG AS WE HAVE 4 PEOPLE MAKING POSTS TO THE FRONTSITE EVERY MONTH" or "WE DON'T CARE SO LONG AS WE HAVE x AMOUNT OF VIEWS AND y AMOUNT OF DEVELOPERS".

or

Whether it is, "We need to keep 4 of all staff, if you don't do a combinations of x posts in general, y posts in staff, z posts to the frontsite, or p time spent in #eoff you are unstaff automatically and can be reinstated upon request."

It doesn't matter. Arguing it does only argues the Elitism of the position. I'm not going to pretend I know the more efficient of the two methods for site growth but, the worry that someone might be "offended that they had their title removed". This shouldn't be a concern in a successful organization. You constantly earn your title, we're just a small internet site, so we are always willing to give it back you are rarely "fired", but less worry needs to be put on destaffing and staffing members. New members should be staffed as soon as their is a need. One could argue this entire event is an embarrassment of riches, except it at least generates a lot activity. That's really all I have to say about this, large argument over the policy in which staff should be unstaffed and new staff should be staffed will always boil down to the wrong argument, "maturity" over efficiency.

[Quindiana Jones]

You speak as though this is an organisation or a business, but it's not. It's a community. Who's on staff isn't about who can be the most productive or the most efficient, it's about who's best for the community.

[Goldenboko]

Quin, I love you, but are you really listening to what you are saying? A community is great because the community is great. It's because members like you, Steve, Paul, Shorty, Tifa's Boobs, I can go on, are so memorable. Who is a CK is not why I come here and read. By this point the policing the staff needs to do to keep it that way is very, very low. Realistically they can do it without any more help. The staff needs to be worrying about how to keep the site growing, so our next big member can find us such as millie. That is what is best for this community.

EDIT: I'm sticking to my word and saying I have nothing else to say on a matter that should be trivial.

[Quindiana Jones]

But that's the point of this competition. Think about the rounds we've done. They've all been about contributing to the site; forums, news, allsorts. They're obviously using this competition to find non-staff members who can and will help the site.

[Goldenboko]

Then why does it matter how someone who hasn't been around is destaffed?