• 168 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 5103 Players Online
  • 4935 Players on Bedrock
  • pe.mineplex.com
Attention Internet Explorer Users
To have the best user experience on our site please consider upgrading to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox

In-Game Level/Time Requirement to Apply for Staff Position

Discussion in 'General Idea Discussion' started by Ducksicle, May 7, 2021.

  1. I understand that as of now, there is no level or in-game time requirement for a player to apply for trainee. I don't think this is good and here are a couple reasons why.

    No matter how good an application looks, you need to understand that people can simply be good at writing, their schedule can be lenient, and they are able to lie. I don't think applications are even close an accurate representation of how well a person can do their job, and this goes for any job outside of Minecraft too. I read over the trainee application list, and some questions under "Mineplex Experience" are regarding how and why people are a part of the Mineplex community, positive/negative experiences, inspirations, improvements, and listed punishments. Nothing asks about how long these applicants have been on the server or how high their level is. Whether you like it or not, newer players do not have enough knowledge about the server or the community to be an effective staff member. They can have extensive training during their trainee session and they can have a wonderful mentor. However, having your own community experience is the only way you can really understand everything.
    I'm suggesting there to be at least an in-game time requirement before players are able to apply, just so there's a better chance these people have basic knowledge about how this server and its games work. If there was a player level requirement, even better. The reason I'm suggesting this is because I have never been a staff member (and never plan to be one), but I've came across modmen who don't even know the rules as well as I do. This can be extremely problematic, especially when having to deal with punishments, whether they are gameplay or chat offenses. In addition, I know some people apply on alts for whatever reason, and their levels are quite low. There is no way to prove that this person is an alt, so I think being firm with "this many in-game hours" or "this level minimum" to apply can be very helpful in selecting the best fit staff members.

    I know some people are going to disagree with this, but read this from the perspective of someone who has been playing on the server since 2013 and someone who has had to correct multiple staff members in the past, not some power-hungry level 20 modman.
    Posted May 7, 2021
  2. There is an in-game time requirement of 2.1 days (50 hours) currently, so in a way this has already implemented. Otherwise I don't think there should be a level requirement, since you don't need to be good at the game to be a staff member. It is pretty much saying 'oh, you are bad at the game? We won't accept you until you get better.' Sure there could be some people who aren't great at the game and have a high level, but I don't think people want to grind Mineplex to get to the level requirement just to become a staff member. But otherwise there is an in-game requirement for Trainee.
    Posted May 7, 2021
  3. In this case, I suggest to increase in game time req. I'm not saying that staff members have to be good at games, and it shouldn't take "grinding" to meet a level requirement. It should just be enough to show that they aren't completely new to the server, a reasonable level like at least 35
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 7, 2021
    Tanish_ and Paladise like this.
  4. If you have 50 hours of in-game time you're going to be level 25+ most likely anyway. Recruitment is not going to accept someone that only got their hours from sitting in a lobby. We've had the 50 hour requirement for as long as I've been here which is more than 4 years, and it seems to work just fine. The lowest in-game time I've seen from a Java Trainee that I can remember off the top of my head is around 11 days, so the huge majority of Trainees already have way more than 50 hours anyway. I don't think changing this requirement would really change the amount of people we're going to accept, and those less than level 30 getting staff are already rare. I don't think we need to change this system that's been around for half a decade.
    Posted May 7, 2021,
    Last edited May 7, 2021
  5. Just because this system has been around for half a decade doesn't mean the system is good. The point of this suggestion is to make an attempt to improve the selection of staff and keep an open mind.

    I'm not asking for statistical data. I'm TELLING you that in my experience as a player alone, I have come across low level modmen that have a hard time doing their job properly, especially getting confused by what rules are set in place and how to handle punishments. For the time you have been a staff member, the system may seem to "work just fine" but as a player, I can guarantee this isn't the case.

    If this is true, then that supports my suggestion that there should be a level requirement to apply. This way, recruitment knows that the applicants have had a decent amount of experience on the server.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 7, 2021
  6. I'm not quite sure why you're doubting a tried and true system that you don't know the specifics of. I understand you've encountered staff members that may not be able to answer all your questions correctly, but we're all humans and trying our best. Just because someone does not know the answer to something doesn't make them unfit to be staff, we're all learning. Increasing a level requirement does not automatically guarantee everyone above that level knows everything about the server. None of our staff members are going to be able to answer every single specific question about all our rules and gamemodes.

    Recruitment already has a 50 hour in-game time requirement, and most every Java staff member far exceeds this bare minimum already. Most staff members, like I said, are already above level 25 anyway before being accepted, and Recruitment does not accept candidates that have spent very little time in any gamemode. Increased level does not directly equate increased knowledge, and the majority of current staff members are above level 30 already.

    The issue you're trying to address here is poor game knowledge from what I can see on your previous threads. I have poor game knowledge in some gamemodes and I'm level 100. I know very little about SSM or Clans, because I simply don't play those games. This doesn't mean I don't deserve to be on the staff team. It means that if I encounter a question or situation with either of these gamemodes, it is my responsibility to seek help if I'm unsure. If you're continually running into staff members that are giving you false information and making no effort to seek out proper help, you can gather evidence and send it to myself, any StM member, or create a support ticket about their behavior at mineplex.com/tickets.

    Overall, most all staff would already exceed a level requirement, and it would not solve the core problem you're presenting. You're also unaware (as am I) about Recruitment's current expectations and minimum requirements when it comes to activity distribution and level requirements, so it's hard to make a comment about their practices when they're not public.
    Posted May 7, 2021
    Eqsa, 20LeeBrian1, xUmbreon and 2 others like this.
  7. Oh my god I get it, I get this same reply on all of my threads. This isn't any excuse when it comes to the quality of the overall staff team. The point I'm trying to make is that there can be improvements to the staff team, including staff selection. Instead of letting every modman learn from their mistakes, it would be better if they understood their expectations beforehand.

    Not in all cases, but I'm talking about a literal level 17 applicant, brand new to Mineplex, that happened to be accepted as trainee. There would be a HUGE difference in knowledge about the server when comparing such a low level to higher ones. If you seriously don't believe new players have less knowledge, especially about the punishment system, compared to a level 70+, you are incorrect.

    I never said this was my only concern. Yes I have made previous threads complaining about that issue, but I'm talking about general and basic knowledge about the server mostly, especially rules and how to handle them. Let's take your situation for example; you said you don't do SSM much but that doesn't mean you don't deserve to be on the staff team. That's fair, I never said it wasn't. However, if you are not comfortable in a certain area on the server, you shouldn't be dealing with those reports. Like you said, you can get a second opinion or just let someone else take care of it, as you should. However, not every staff member thinks this way. Many modmen will take care of a report in an area they don't know much about simply because they THINK THEY KNOW ENOUGH, when really it leads to false punishments. This is the common problem with staff members that are new to the server. Their judgement gets in the way of their expected actions.

    The issue with this is that I believe what staff tells me online, and then I learn later on they were incorrect on forums. This is problematic because I do not save any evidence that a staff member was misinforming me, and this occurs almost every time I have this sort of situation. I also talk to many different staff members and can get confused between people if I didn't save evidence.

    I may not know all the details when it comes to recruitment's expectations. However, if a player's level has any effect on their decision whether to accept or deny an application, I would expect to see it on the application form, which I do not. Regarding in-game time requirements, 2.1 days is far too little for such a large responsibility. If you really believe that this is enough time for a player to have their own experiences on the server and learn basics about how the server works, I would have to disagree.

    If you're going to keep denying every suggestion I make and find every reason to argue why it isn't worth considering rather than opening up to the reasons why it MIGHT improve the server, I would spend more time thinking about it. This conversation isn't very insightful because you keep having the same attitude about the server and depict it as a perfect system, which is not. I am not the only player that complains about these things. This is general ideas discussion for a reason; so that we can discuss things we'd like to see to improve the server. I'm not saying that all my ideas should be accepted, however, I'm very tired of the constant closed-minded attitude I receive from staff members. You give me the impression that you are tired of hearing about my complaints rather than being happy to help. At least consider why these ideas might be helpful before you argue about why it isn't.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 7, 2021
    MaybeMulti and Uchiha Itachi like this.
  8. I hope that I am able to bring some clarification, information, and my opinion to the table here. I am a member of Recruitment so I thought I would come along and address some of the points made in the above posts.

    To address your main point of adding an in-game time requirement, this already exists on both the Bedrock and Java platform. In order to even have your application be considered by the Recruitment team, your IGT must be at least 2.1 days of time spent in games, not including lobbies and this is the same on Java as it is on Bedrock. This is one of the very first things we check when we are processing applications, so that's why if someone who submits an application does not meet this basic requirement, they will be rejected within a few days after submitting their application.

    As for your suggestion about a level requirement, I have seen this raised as a suggestion in the past, however I do not see it happening anytime in the future. From my understanding, most, if not all the Recruitment team hold a similar opinion on this. Personally, introducing a level requirement is not a way to solve the issue you seem to see as uneducated Staff members. I want to assure you that behind the scenes, a lot goes into the recruitment of new Trainees that the community doesn't see. There are things I'm unable to go into since I won't reveal our exact process publicly, but we do not just review in-game time. For example, we are able to tell how often players are logging into the server and whether they're using an alternate account, which could raise some issues. We know if a player has taken a significant break from the server, and in that case they are usually instructed to familiarise themselves with the server and reintegrate themselves into the server again prior to re-applying.

    I agree with your point about experience being important, and gaining this experience through games - I am glad to see you addressing this. I also think that applicants should have gone through a number of different community experiences before being accepted, however, this isn't really something we track, or even can track. We may keep an eye on how involved applicants are in certain aspects of the community - for example, the CMP and whether that's relevant to them or not, but we are not going to base our final opinions solely on their experiences on the server. Some people are good at learning on the spot, and perhaps they meet all the requirements and we see potential in them, so we might give them an opportunity to prove themselves. Experiences is a tough one, because we can't make a solid requirement on it due to it not being trackable or measurable, however we do ask for this to be discussed in the application (there is an individual question asking about positive/negative experiences).

    Regarding your point about writing a good application and easily being accepted, I can assure you this is not how we recruit Trainees. The process for recruiting trainees is way more in-depth. If we are interested in an application, then we will make sure to check over other factors, such as activity. If these are all satisfied, then they may be invited to an interview - here is where we are able to learn more about them, and it allows us to learn some more about their potential experiences on the server too. So while someone can hypothetically write a great application and get an interview, that doesn't guarantee they will be accepted. Another quick point to make is that a "great" application doesn't just mean it's written well, we look for more than good grammar and spelling. We are interested in their experiences, their inspirations, etc - it's not all about the application and how it's been laid out. We would need to be satisfied by their conduct in an interview as well prior to acceptance. Yes, people can lie, this happens anywhere in life. We do our best to detect any deceit, and those caught will be punished accordingly. However, we're all humans and so I'm throwing the possibility out there that perhaps a lie may get through sometimes. For the most part, we are pretty good at determining whether someone is applying just for the tag and permissions or if they actually want to help out the community, among other things.

    Personally, I do not agree with a level requirement when players can gain experience other ways. Trainees aren't required to spend all of their time in game, we are actually interested in seeing applicants being active across all of Mineplex's platforms. This means that the in-game server isn't the only place we're interested in seeing activity, there is the Mineplex Discord and the forums too. The IGT requirement we currently has serves its purpose, and adding in a level requirement (in my opinion) wouldn't be useful or necessary. Thinking off the top of my head while writing this, I can't see how it would benefit us - it would likely cut off more applicants from applying who spend time gaining experience in lobbies, and not much else would be changed. Remember that games aren't all that the Staff team are expected to moderate, some prefer moderating lobbies and that is completely okay. Rules knowledge can be gained via lobby experience too.

    I will end by saying that if you have any issues with the knowledge of particular Staff members, this should be directed to a Staff Management member, so make sure to contact one of them if necessary (found at www.mineplex.com/staff). If you have any other suggestions for the Recruitment team, you are welcome to create another thread or even message me privately and we can discuss it further. I'm happy to hear your thoughts if you wish to make further comments though!
    Posted May 7, 2021
    20LeeBrian1, Eqsa, Fusafez and 3 others like this.
  9. hmm...hmm...
    intelligently written
    i like this idea mr. duck and i support it
    Posted May 7, 2021
    MaybeMulti and Ducksicle like this.
  10. Recruitment does extremely extensive background checks which at the most basic level absolutely include checking their /stats and their in-game time before they're ever accepted to an interview. Just because it's not on the application doesn't mean it's not relevant.

    If this happening to you often and you believe it might happen again, it would be a good idea to start gathering evidence so we can identify which staff members are struggling, and be able to support them.

    Trainees are not expected to know all of our rules, there's so many of them and they're all sorts of severities and special cases and team-only punishments. The point of a Trainee trial is to teach them the rules. They already have basic game knowledge or else they wouldn't have been accepted. If it would make you feel better, I can reiterate the importance of seeking help for less familiar gamemodes when I get new Trainees.

    Overall, the suggestion you're making wouldn't solve the problem you're concerned about. Only accepting staff members over level 70 is unreasonable, and any level of staff member is capable of making a mistake. You seem to have an abnormally high rate of odd interactions with staff members and I'm sorry about that.

    I'm also sorry that you feel I, in specific, have been closed minded, but I'm trying to provide you insight. You're making suggestions about the internal functioning of the team despite only having surface level knowledge of how these processes already work. This thread for example was suggesting an in-game time requirement, which we already have in place. You also suggested we quote chat offenses when issuing punishments, but we already do this in most all situations. You called our punishment system inconsistent but you don't know how many pages of guidelines and specifications staff members have to follow when issuing punishments. I appreciate your drive to improve the server, but it's hard to make suggestions about the staff team with little knowledge about how it works.

    I won't say much more to address the topic as you've gotten a thorough response from a Recruiter already.
    Posted May 7, 2021
  11. Hi Nick,
    Some others already addressed this earlier. Read my points above to see what I think about this ^^

    Obviously this is expected, and I understand that this process isn't public. My point is, since you admitted that level requirement was already discussed and majority of the recruitment team stands by a similar opinion about it, I assume that the level of applicants are not considered to any degree during this process. As you know, my concern is about the basic knowledge of new staff members due to the amount of false punishments I have witnessed throughout my years on the server. I wrote about this more in depth in my reply to Dulciloquy above:
    I never knew about this. Are you allowed to elaborate on what you mean by seeing if a player is using an alt? Is it though ips?

    When I wrote "well-written application," I'm addressing the person's ability to exaggerate their experiences in order to appear more presentable to recruitment, not just formal writing. People are able to tell a story in different ways, but if it is written well, it can be more convincing or appeal to emotion.

    I understand that this is not a requirement. However, there is no doubt that by playing games and spending time with the community, you are exposed to more information about the server. Though it might not be directly correlated with the quality of work done by staff members, it can certainly give people a better understanding of what is expected of the staff team. And I'm not saying that there should be an unreasonably high level requirement, but a level that's enough to recognize that this player has spent enough time in the community and they are best fit for whatever position.

    This is the issue I come across quite frequently:
    I understand this, and it's fine to make minor mistakes during the Trainee trial. However, a lot of the false punishments I've seen were done by modmen, not Trainees.

    I did not suggest this. Please reread what I wrote. I was making a comparison between a level as low as 17 vs. any higher level; I used level 70 just as an example. Earlier I suggested that the minimum level requirement should be around 30-40

    Can you please stop assuming that I know little about how this works? I'm level 100 too, I spend loads of time talking to staff on forums, online Mineplex, and other platforms. I now understand that there is an in-game time requirement, but I'm suggesting that to increase. I suggested to quote chat offenses because most of my/my friends' chat offenses are not quoted in my punishment history where we can view, so to assume staff members usually do this is incorrect. I wrote about the inconsistent punishment system because from the community's experience, there is way too much leniency in judgement when dealing with reports. Even if there are "pages of guidelines and specifications," it still isn't enough to prevent staff members from handling reports differently due to personal judgement. It is evident that staff members aren't reading through these guidelines, because on another one of my threads, I was told that "there are not enough resources when it comes to dealing with reports." You don't understand what I already know, so to assume I know "little" is ridiculous and quite rude/unprofessional for you to point out.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 8, 2021,
    Last edited by a Moderator May 10, 2021
    Paladise likes this.
  12. Personally I agree with some form of level requirement, but not as high as you said, maybe level 20. It wouldn't make much of a difference in the accepted candidates already but definitely promotes & encourages more in-game time and, most especially, knowledge. What do you think about this @AyyNick ? This could go on top of the 50hrs requirement - an applicant should have both. The reason I say this is because getting 50 hours in-game is much easier than getting level 20 as you can do nothing all game and just be there for the time - while for level 20 you are going to in some form attempt to learn the games and get better experience. This isn't to say people should be expected to be great at the games to become staff members, but rather have increased game knowledge which would definitely come from this. Plus, as I mentioned before, it wouldn't make much of a difference in the accepted applicants already, so I don't really see the harm in adding it. This would also mean that candidates must have an all-round experience in Mineplex - meaning that people that exclusively play Clans or hang out in MPSs need to also have that bit of experience in the rest of Mineplex.

    On the contrary though, you mention that you see Moderators mainly giving out wrong information/punishing incorrectly rather than actual Trainees. With that logic, it seems that there is more of an issue with mentoring Moderators, not recruiting. Maybe the issue is too much lenience when a Trainee gets promoted to a Moderator, and is more prone to making mistakes they previously would not have made with a mentor breathing over their shoulder. I understand that there is a Mod Test in place approximately 2 weeks after a Moderator promotion which is good in terms of making sure that a newly-promoted Moderator is still keeping up with rules and whatnot. However, maybe the issue is with Moderators that have been staff for a while, have done their Mod Test months ago and are here now, not necessarily as active as they used to be, but aren't being directly monitored since they have been here for so long.

    Maybe, @Dulciloquy , there could be additional tests given to Moderators every couple of months. They could be mandatory for every Mod (not Sr. Mod), and include basic game knowledge as well as the rules themselves as questions. For example, there could be one test for the first week of March, June, September, December. If someone is on leave during that time then they could take it when they come back. (Instead of four, maybe three or two a year - but you get the gist)

    As for how it could be made - a list of 100 questions or so could be made and then a random 10 questions come up on the test each time. These could be a mix of multiple-choice/longer questions. They don't have to be overly complicated or anything, so they don't have to take a really long time to fill out - but they should include things like recent rule-changes if there are any or just general changes to Mineplex. I think this would be a good solution in terms of checking in with staff members that have been here a while that still moderate but obviously aren't monitored/check-ed in with very closely and often. Cheating also shouldn't be too much of a problem, as if someone cheats to get the answer for a certain question they are still obviously learning what they didn't know before, plus this wouldn't be the only test they take.

    This is just my suggestion, though, and I'd like to hear the feedback :D
    Posted May 8, 2021,
    Last edited May 8, 2021
  13. I haven't read any of the replies so far, so apologies if you've replied to some of my points, but here's my reply from when I first became a staff member here:

    ’ll leave my reply here as I think I have some unique points (for future reference: at the time of writing this - I’ve been a trainee for 3 days, so my perspective may differ heavily from other users, maybe in the future I’ll change perspective as I get more involved).

    Essentially: I disagree with raising time/level requirements: but I agree, game knowledge should be put at a high priority.

    First of all: I agree, 2.1 days isn’t enough to gain a full experience of most of the games on the network (I’d personally say 5 days is pretty decent - however, I think there should also be a requirement on lobby time if this was increased, for reasons I’ll mention later), however: I strongly disagree that level should be a requirement at all. Levels are a good indicator of knowledge (a level 100 will obviously know more than a level 0), but also fail to recognise the other methods of people taking in information: personally, I enjoy watching people play games on youtube and reading guides, rather than playing myself. Whilst I’ve played since 2015, I don’t have an amazing level: partially because I’m awful at games, partially because I just enjoy relaxing in lobbies.

    My next point: Higher level can be a bad thing, often people with higher levels are bored of the server with limited things to do, this can mean that they’re burned out and becoming a staff member can exacerbate this issue as they may find that they need to take a lengthy break, rather than becoming a staff member. I’ve seen a few examples on other servers, where someone has become staff at level 600 and resigned within a few months due to boredom of the server as a whole: thinking that the staff team would give them new interest. Lower level players often come with a strong desire to learn about the server, community and staff team and this can be a good motivation to get to know the server and community more - whilst at first, sure: they don't know as much, overtime this could make them a better staff member than a higher level player.

    My next point: You don’t earn levels in lobbies, lots of “aspiring trainees” like to spend time in lobbies to get a lot of community interaction (and be able to answer questions), as a result: often they’ll spend more time in lobbies than in games (this is something I’m guilty of), and as we all know, you don’t earn levels/exp/ingame time from lobbies - this results in it looking much lower. At the same time: I have an ex-staff member friend who has spent 30 days in-game, but only 2 days in lobbies who struggles with a lot of game-related information, so this isn’t necessarily a great indicator of knowledge, I believe that asking game questions is a better way to demonstrate knowledge (I’ll get onto this point later).

    My next point is a pretty major one: playing 1 game repetitively (raising your time) doesn’t help to actually gain knowledge. Some people will very easily be able to rack up in-game time by playing one game (e.g. bridges, UHC, turf wars) for long periods of time, this doesn't necessarily give them “game experience”, the only experience in 1 game: sure they meet an in-game time requirement (no matter how high you put it, people can do this), but this doesn’t give them a wide variety of game knowledge - only some basic knowledge of commands such as party, msg and an understanding of that one game.

    Next: I saw you mention a few times that people are only going for the tag (or only going for the perks). Simply put: both the perks and the tag aren’t worth it. Sure - you get a sudden rush of attention and forum alerts when you first get trainee, but this dies off within a few hours and you just blend in, within a couple of days: this won't be a major factor anymore: this is something that I expect most aspiring trainees understand (and I assume the recruitment team lookout for and have methods in place to check if someone is going for the attention or power: rather than to genuinely make a difference). Regardless, some people will slip through: however, they probably won't make it through the trial if this is the case.

    As for “people you’ve never heard of”: I don’t like this argument at all: unless you have access to every portion of the community, you will not know most people on the server, there are people from the forum community, each game community, lobby community, even different languages: on a server with over 2k players, it’s extremely difficult to recognize a lot of people, saying you don’t recognize someone isn’t a good argument: arguably, being less well known is also a good thing: it means fewer people dislike you (as fewer people know you), it makes it much harder to be involved in drama, which obviously is a bad thing.

    My next point: The trial has precautions in place to ensure activity, meaning if someone is inactive: they will not be promoted to moderator: trainee is a trial rank for a reason, it allows the trial team to review and ensure that someone is high quality before allowing them to continue as a moderator: I genuinely think the trainee trial system is one of the best things about the recruitment process, you have time to prove yourself, improve on mistakes, make mistakes without causing issues and become a better moderator in the future, you have to remember: a trainee is still part of the recruitment process and is still under review.

    My next point: It’s difficult to determine whether someone will be long term, as mentioned before: it’s borderline impossible for the recruitment team to look forward and determine “oh cookiebilly will stay for 5 years”, regardless of what they do to improve this, this will always be the case: most servers struggle to keep staff for more than 6 months, especially when most of the staff are in school/university and have extremely busy lives: and unless the age requirement was 60, this probably wouldn’t change. There’s probably some cool ways to increase retention, but I’m not a staff manager, so I don’t feel comfortable discussing that.

    Next: I saw someone reply with “While at first glance the majority of the responsibilities of being a Trainee seem straight-forward and doable, such as punishing players when they need to be punished and answering questions when they're asked, to me it goes so much more in-depth than that.” I can say, when I first applied: I also thought trainee was much more simple than it actually is: from just my first few days, it’s hectic and not something I think most people are suited for, it takes a lot of patience, multitasking abilities and professionalism to do the role: there have been multiple situations already in my few days that I doubt most players could handle (e.g. people being very rude towards me for not punishing fast enough whilst double-checking with other staff that my evidence was sufficient), a lot of harassment (in part because of having a low level) among many other very scary situations: it’s a difficult role to do and people using level against staff members doesn’t help this (although, I definitely think the concern is understandable from a community point of view, as long as it’s done respectfully, rather than saying “omg x staff member is only level 20, they’re so nooby”).

    From personal experience and from what I’ve read: I’d personally like to see more game-specific scenarios be presented during multiple stages of the application process.

    Positives of more game questions being asked:
    • Shows that applicants understand game information, meaning they can better answer players questions in lobbies.
    • Leads to a more well rounded staff team (as if people are denied, they’ll go and find more knowledge, leading to people having more game knowledge long term).

    Negatives of more game questions being asked:

    • Short term: less people would be accepted as a few people would struggle to answer these questions, however: after a while, they’d have the knowledge.

    I think this is the best solution overall: as I mentioned, level and ingame time don’t always reflect knowledge.
    Posted May 8, 2021
    Fusafez, WowCaleb and Jylie like this.
  14. @Ducksicle is the level 17 person you are talking about @aahad? he has a level 60 account and the only reason he is level 17 on his new account is because he's logged out of his old one. if not then tell me who the mod is
    Posted May 8, 2021
  15. Think he means @Tortelett, not sure
    Posted May 8, 2021
    scarlet likes this.
  16. lol that's even funnier? SM sr. mods don't even need to go in-game
    Posted May 8, 2021
  17. Do levels even mean anything on Mineplex? To me, the only thing having a high level tells me about a person is they like to play lots of games, and I don't draw any further assumptions from that player based off a number next to their name. If you look at this figure and make an immediate judgement about that player's experience, knowledge and overall competence as a staff member then that sounds more like having a closed mindset. The Recruitment team have a more open mindset, and they recognise all the other, various ways of determining a potential staff member's level of knowledge and experience, that are all part of an internal, rigorous application process.

    The perfect example of making an incorrect assumption based off someone's level has been provided above. There is currently a level 17 staff member who is level 60 on their main account. Now, if they made a mistake, I'm sure many people would take one look at their level, and arrive at the conclusion they're level 17 and therefore don't have enough game-related knowledge. Moving onto a less obvious example, if there's a lower-level applicant who runs a Skywars MPS every day, then it would be completely unfair to assume they do not have enough game-related knowledge if you're not going to say the same thing about a player who plays it in public lobbies every day. These players have a very similar level of experience, but one of theirs is not made obvious to players as the number beside their name doesn't increase (XP isn't earned in MPS').

    Having community experience is great - it's something that I, personally, go out of my way to get. But that's because I love interacting with the community regardless, so it's not like I'm forcing myself to do something I don't enjoy. Does it make someone a bad staff member if they remain behind the scenes, and don't play as many games? That's where it might come down to difference in opinion. I would never measure myself up against another staff member who prefers to spend their time processing reports; there are one or two in particular that I'm friends with who I know have this preference and they end up processing thousands per month. So not having extensive experience in games does not, in any sense mean you're a poor staff member. If they are more prone to making mistakes, then that's almost a separate discussion entirely, as it relates to Staff Management considering they're already a staff member. They were promoted to the position for reasons other than solely sitting in games; that's how Recruitment runs the show, after that it's down to StM to check in on their knowledge.

    It is not down to Recruitment to regularly test an applicant's game-related knowledge. They spend a few weeks with them to ensure they tick all the boxes of the qualities they're looking for in a Trainee. One of those is experience, which like I said, is assessed through means other than looking at their level: the questions in the application, the interview stage, the knowledge section of the interview, and other internal processes for which I'm in no position to assume what happens there. There is a huge difference between experience, meaning the bigger picture of the player's time on the server that you can actually make a judgement on, and experience, meaning those in-game levels and XP which are there to tell you nothing but that the player enjoys spending their time playing games on the network.

    Finally, I disagree with the suggestion of having even a low level requirement. I think it's pretty obvious why that wouldn't be fair, that being you earn different amounts of XP from different games. If someone likes to play Nano Games, it would take them way longer to be able to apply than someone who's good at and enjoys Cake Wars or Speed Builders. The 2.1 days in-game time requirement is fair because 50 hours in CW is the same as 50 hours in Nano Games. As for increasing the 2.1 days, what would this actually do? 2.1 days is the bare minimum to apply, and standing out as an applicant is about proving you're far from just being the bare minimum. Meeting the 2.1 days means you're eligible to be reviewed for all the other qualities Recruitment are looking for in a potential Trainee. That assessment is exactly what determines how capable you are, not the statistic at the start that is just a standard box to be ticked.

    I think it's unfortunate that players are quick to assume a player's level is the reason why they made a mistake, and I hope that more of them can break out of that unhealthy mindset. If a staff member makes multiple mistakes, then it's best to take it up with their mentor and let StM handle it. But there's no point backtracking right to the beginning when Recruitment looked after them, because they had no way of testing this the same way StM can - after all, when they were an applicant they didn't have access to the punishment guidelines or tools to ban and mute; how can you know for sure they're going to be prone to repeatedly making mistakes in the future, as a staff member (if this is the case)? While it's not the number one quality they search for, Recruitment still do all they can in trying to assess it through the means I listed above. After that it's over to StM. Raising the in-game time requirement or introducing a level requirement does not counteract these issues just like that.
    Posted May 8, 2021,
    Last edited May 8, 2021
    Jylie, scarlet and Uchiha Itachi like this.
  18. This is why I suggested more tests in my above reply:
    "Maybe, @/Dulciloquy , there could be additional tests given to Moderators every couple of months. They could be mandatory for every Mod (not Sr. Mod), and include basic game knowledge as well as the rules themselves as questions. For example, there could be one test for the first week of March, June, September, December. If someone is on leave during that time then they could take it when they come back. (Instead of four, maybe three or two a year - but you get the gist)

    As for how it could be made - a list of 100 questions or so could be made and then a random 10 questions come up on the test each time. These could be a mix of multiple-choice/longer questions. They don't have to be overly complicated or anything, so they don't have to take a really long time to fill out - but they should include things like recent rule-changes if there are any or just general changes to Mineplex. I think this would be a good solution in terms of checking in with staff members that have been here a while that still moderate but obviously aren't monitored/check-ed in with very closely and often. Cheating also shouldn't be too much of a problem, as if someone cheats to get the answer for a certain question they are still obviously learning what they didn't know before, plus this wouldn't be the only test they take."

    I feel like it is pretty possible that there are staff members here that have been here a good while that aren't particularly as active and they used to be. They might not on many sub-teams either, if any, and are definitely prone to making moderation mistakes as they're not getting closely monitored at their punishments or what they say to others in response to questions/concerns. This is why I believe there should be tests like these a few times a year. Mineplex is constantly changing, not only with the rules or game updates but also with different processes, the community is changing too, and I believe Moderators should be tested on this if they are going to keep moderating.
    Posted May 8, 2021
  19. The Recruitment team in the past few months has been discussing an increase to the in-game time requirement, and it's something we've all come together to want to see implemented. However, there's some other changes that we're trying to figure out the details of and is still in extremely early stages of implementation. For the sake of consistency, when it comes to changing up the Recruitment process and the basic requirements for it, it's not an area I'd like to actively touch. As such, I can't say with certainty when something of the sort will get implemented, since I'd rather do changes all at once than open the process up for confusion where it gets changed on a regular basis.

    I'm all for increasing the in-game time requirement, however, like I've said in the past this is not really a solution that solves the problems that have been outlined in this thread and others. I've been on Recruitment for a couple of years now, and it's always been likely for both my low level interviewee to sweep me off my feet when it comes to knowledge, as it is for a long-standing community member to completely disappoint me with their knowledge. I don't think a requirement around levels is ever going to be introduced, at least if it does happen it won't be by me. The leveling system to me is not and never will be a good indicator for people's knowledge and honestly it'll never really be a good indicator of how much they've been playing either. Why would I assume someone's knowledge based on their level when I can just ask them questions and see how they respond? There's no downside to us as Recruitment to invite someone to an interview and see how they do in the knowledge portion of the interview, but there's definitely a huge downside if we flat out reject someone because we're assuming they don't have the proper knowledge based on arbitrary stats.

    To circle back to the changes I mentioned before, raising the in-game time requirement is something we'd like to do; however, it won't really do us any good if it's not followed with something that makes sure applicants are open to all platforms and games on the network. That's a bit of a nightmare to work into a definitive system such as the minimum requirements (which are something you can look at and objectively decide on, such as 2.1 days of igt, either you have it or you don't).
    Posted May 8, 2021,
    Last edited May 8, 2021
    anna dot, outlloved, Blahh_ and 11 others like this.
  20. Agreed with everything you said, just wanted to add because it would be remiss of me if I did not also mention that Clans players specifically have the tendency to be lower leveled as there is no XP-reward for playing the game, as well as communities like the Castle Siege one that operate out of MPS, etc, and so in some games people aren't earning XP at all, making a leveling system unfair.

    It's why I played from 2013-2021 and got only 50 levels.

    Posted May 8, 2021
    Danese likes this.

Share This Page