• 307 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 5674 Players Online
  • 5367 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 know this already, but I'm talking about my experiences with staff with lower levels and not just this one in particular. There seems to be a common theme when comparing low levels to how these staff members attempt to "help" me, which is why I wrote about this here. I'm not making an assumption that since they have a low level, they have little game knowledge. I'm basing my claim off the fact that most staff members who I've seen handle punishments incorrectly or have provided me false information are typically ones that are lower level.


    My thoughts on this are that staff applicants should be game players before they apply. It makes no sense to have to play games while you are on the staff team, but being a part of the community is important and teaches you a lot of things before you even apply for the position.


    My suggestion isn't for players to have to grind a certain amount of XP in order to apply. I think it would be so much better if there was a reasonable level requirement just enough to show that this person has been playing on the server enough and has been exposed to the community a little bit before they apply, because I'm under the impression that some staff members are often clueless.

    Yeah, the level requirement shouldn't make a huge difference in the recruitment process but should be enough to filter out completely new players.

    This is another issue, which I already discussed in my thread titled 'Mineplex's Inconsistent Punishment System'


    This should certainly be something that happens on the staff team. Reassurance is important

    Yes, if level requirement is not something you think would help, at LEAST raise the in-game time. I'm not saying the level has to be super high, and it shouldn't make a huge difference when reviewing applicants. It should just be enough to filter out completely new players that are power hungry and apply for that reason alone.


    I don't think there's much you can do about this, but in this case, "too high level" should not be something that makes you reject an applicant. Of course a situation like this MAY happen, but chances are that if a high level player is applying, they are willing to spend time helping the server. If someone is starting to get burned out, chances are they won't apply at all (in most cases)

    If you think this would be better than having a level requirement, at least suggest a lobby time requirement as you stated.


    In addition to this, I also like the idea @maevestarbaby suggested above.

    Thank you for letting us know. It's a bit relieving knowing that this is something that is being discussed.

    When I made this suggestion, I was talking about making a level requirement that is reasonable enough for you to know that this player has been exposed to the community and understands the basics of the server. It shouldn't make a huge difference in the recruitment process, but enough to filter out completely new players.

    You can only ask so many questions before accepting an application. There are hundreds of scenarios that can occur on the server and it's important for them to be very prepared in handling different situations properly.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 8, 2021,
    Last edited by a Moderator May 10, 2021
    maevestarbaby likes this.
  2. I understand, but in fact that is what a level requirement suggestion is: a requirement for players to gain a certain amount of XP in order to apply. They're the same thing. The amount of XP you earn from Mineplex gamemodes is inconsistent; it varies depending on the game, whereas an in-game time count is consistent as it goes up at the same rate for everyone regardless of which game they spend their time playing. Yes, increasing the IGT requirement is harmless as everyone still has the same chance. But the more you increase a level requirement, right from level 1, the more one-sided it becomes. The inequality between applicants grows as it takes increasingly longer for those who play gamemodes with fewer rewards to earn the same amount of XP as players who frequent CW, SB, etc. And what about games that don't give XP at all, like Clans or playing in MPS' (ex. Castle Siege) which give the same experience as a public lobby?

    I don't really understand your views on staff members playing games. Honestly, this argument is a great example of how difficult it is to satisfy everyone, because what I've always seen players criticise the staff team for is hanging out in lobbies and processing reports behind the scenes without getting involved playing games. It's not often I see players querying when we do the opposite. Back to my point though, how do you expect staff members to know the ins and outs of games without experiencing them for themselves? Expecting them to have gathered that necessary experience only as applicants is a poor argument in my opinion. Your experience doesn't stop once you're no longer a community member, and you said yourself the rules are constantly being updated with new changes brought in. So are the games themselves, every once in a while. It's natural to want a first-hand experience to better your knowledge or understanding. That's why I don't understand your argument, because playing games as a staff member is exactly what provides the experience you want from us.

    There is little to no consideration here for the fact that staff sometimes need to play a few games to wind down and enjoy the server for what it is. I don't think there's any shame in admitting that I would probably go insane if I sat in Staff-1 the whole time processing reports, dealing with the toxic nature of StaffRequest, and working myself to the bone all day. I'm sure many sedentary workers in real life would tell you the same. Maybe that's me, but I know it's not just me. It would be the same if I spent my days revising and doing schoolwork without taking a break and going outside. I physically could not cope, nor would I be in a healthy frame of mind if I pursued that.

    All that being said, for clarification I'd like to restate that I think raising the in-game time requirement is harmless. All that I'm opposed to is the level requirement. Like I said in my original post, I'm not necessarily sure whether raising the IGT requirement will go and solve the issues outlined, but I guess trial and error is good. It doesn't disadvantage any player more than the next person, which is the most important thing at the end of the day.
     
    Posted May 8, 2021
  3. I'm just saying that staff aren't required to play every gamemode, but better staff members are often people who have regularly played games on the server before applying for their position.

    If they literally know nothing about a gamemode, they shouldn't be dealing with those gameplay-related reports. It would be better if every trainee was at least exposed to different areas of the server, however I understand it's unreasonable to believe that every modman is able to learn the ins and outs of every game. My point is, they should still make an attempt to learn about a game before falsely punishing players.


    Rules being updated? I don't remember saying this, but I've argued that rules need to be changed. I've talked about the punishment system, RC's reply to my suggestions, and sev 1 chat offenses in particular but I don't think rules are being updated often.

    If you believe this, then I don't understand why you're also opposed to there being a level requirement too, even if it isn't high
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 8, 2021
  4. This would not work at all for people who like to play on MPSes a lot since you don't earn any xp from MPSes. A person can meet the 50 hr requirement and also be very experienced with the server without being a high level by playing on MPSes.
     
    Posted May 8, 2021
    Fusafez likes this.
  5. In Ducksicles defense (regarding the thread), not many players are on MPSes the majority of their time within Mineplex. Furthermore, players would first have to understand the fundamental principles of each specific game before playing MPS; otherwise, it would be a conglomerate solely constructed of confusion, unless you have a friend/fellow player to assist you within the MPS. Correct me if I am wrong, however; in-order to obtain the ability to publicize, or rather create, a MPS, you must have a certain rank. I am certain that individuals without ranks have obtained a position on the staff team, without playing MPS or even hearing of MPS. Ultimately, your reply seems as if you're against the idea Ducksicle is proposing based off of MPS and how XP isn't able to be acquired within MPS; however, MPS isn't really relevant at all to the idea Ducksicle is proposing, as you cannot obtain such supreme knowledge from MPSes. I hope this comment/reply to your original reply convinces you to re-consider your opinion on this suggestion.
     
    Posted May 8, 2021
    Ducksicle likes this.
  6. You keep saying variants of "weed out the completely new players" but this is already being done in the application process. You cannot become a staff member unless you have 50 hours spend in an actual game (Recruitment earlier confirmed lobby time does not count). And Islen said he was thinking about raising it already. I had said the lowest in-game time I can remember from a recent Trainee is about 11 days. We do not allow someone to just hop on the server and immediately be accepted as a Trainee.

    Islen had mentioned he places more emphasis on an interview and asking them about their knowledge instead of assuming it based on their level. You responded back that there's no way we can prepare them for every situation on the server, but this is what the Trainee trial is for. The recruitment process exists to make sure a candidate has base level knowledge and experience, and that they're willing to learn and improve in their 2 month trial. The trial exists so that we can choose to remove a staff member from the team if they are not improving and not meeting our expectations.

    You've also made iterations of this comment more than once "they should still make an attempt to learn about a game before falsely punishing players", and I absolutely 100% agree that we all should be doing this. If you have evidence that someone is continually not seeking out proper advice and continually issuing incorrect punishments, please let their mentor or admin know. Staff members are always taught to be 100% sure about the punishments they issue before they issue them, and they are taught to seek out advice or confirmation if they're unsure. Of course we're still going to make mistakes, and mistakes are made by every level of staff member, not just the lower ones.

    Just because you're seeing lower level staff members make mistakes doesn't mean higher levels are perfect, and it doesn't mean that the level is causing the mistake. A lack of follow through and lack of double checking can cause mistakes, and that's likely due to a staff member's willingness to seek help, not their game knowledge.

    I'm not sure what more can be added to this thread, you've gotten a response from the leader of the Recruitment team about why a level requirement is not going to be added as long as Islen is in charge, and you got more insight as to his thought process and the possibility of increasing the IGT requirement.
     
    Posted May 8, 2021,
    Last edited May 9, 2021
    Fusafez likes this.
  7. Are they really removing any trainees after their trial is over though? I've never heard about this happening, and I'm under the impression that the standards for trainees are so low that almost every one goes on to become a modman unless they choose to resign. The only reason I'm saying this is because of my argument that too many modmen lack an appropriate amount of knowledge and don't appear to be fit for their position


    We already talked about this and I explained that I never have evidence because I trust what staff tells me and don't assume something they're is incorrect. It's nearly impossible to gather evidence when a staff member convinces you something is true.


    I also explained this earlier, I'm saying majority of staff members that have falsely punished or gave false information happen to be lower level from my experiences talking to them. I never stated anything about higher levels being perfect, but my main focus is on the lower levels that have handled situations inappropriately which I've witnessed myself.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 8, 2021
  8. Just following up here. Yes, we do demote trainees who do not meet our expectations or are not working on improving, and it has happened over the past 2 and 1/2 years that I myself have been the Admin of staff management, and even more in the years before that.

    By saying you've never heard of it happening, sorta proves that you don't have all of the information to make a strong argument for internal processes which is something Dul said earlier. A lot goes on behind the scenes in all corners of the team and to be able to give a more valuable opinion on it, it's almost always a requirement to have some of that backend knowledge. Not saying that your opinion isn't valuable, because it is, but when it comes to internal processes we typically value the opinion of people who have been through them with their own experiences more.

    I've been in the community since late 2013. I've seen hundreds of staff members come and go, and some stay for ages though that's rare. From my personal experience with those staff members and managing them (since early 2015 when, level has almost never correlated with their overall moderation knowledge. Mods who have been here for 5 years and who are level 89 are almost just as likely to make a mistake as a Trainee that was accepted 5 weeks ago and are level 20. That's from my experience with issues that players and other staff members HAVE reported to Staff Management mentors / and / or myself and other Admins.

    I don't want to reiterate what Dul said a ton because you've already heard it. However, if you don't have evidence of the interaction with the staff member that gave you false information or w/e that's fine. If all you can remember is their username and a general description of what happened we would LOVE to get that. Every little bit improves the team and we are thankful for players that bring those types of issues to our attention.
     
    Posted May 9, 2021
    Look_Dan, 20LeeBrian1 and WowCaleb like this.
  9. To be honest, I absolutely love how this thread attempts to directly connect game activity with trainee qualifications... The only connections between these two areas is the fact that they exist on a Minecraft server. No amount of in-game experience will ever in any meaningful way provide any measurement for how an individual is able to 1. work with others, 2. manage their own time, or 3. show any form of actual skill needed for a position directly concerning customer service and miscellaneous attributes needed for a moderation position.
    And while yes, game play knowledge and in-game experience is needed for the position, the above points drastically overshadow that qualifier...
    -Dan

    P.S.

    Oh yeah, by the way, moderators are human and not perfectionist robots. And while yes that may come off as insulting towards the quoted text, this is a fact that one must understand... And yes, this is coming from someone who has first-hand dealings with false punishments and the fallout thereof. I was permanently banned from the forums nearly a year ago for posting a community discord link in my signature (the violation of the rule listed as "extreme inappropriate content" IE content comparable- well- feel free to read it yourself). You'll notice a 3 website point rule under the website's rule list titled "inappropriate content" as well as a 4 point rule titled "light advertisement").

    So please take it from me when I say this: don't expect any moderator to get it right 100% of the time. That's an unreasonable expectation and is not something I will ever hold anyone to in any situation.

    Edits as I read (comments on others' stuff go brrrrrrr!)

    I would be level 100 by this point if MPS's gave xp solely due to the fact that, less it be a holiday event, the majority of my time is spent on MPS servers (CS is fun and I have lost most interest in a lot of the other games on the network as of me writing this out). Nevertheless, though I'm most certainly a minority, rmotheram's point is still a valid one and is another reason not to mark applications off for lacking a certain stat requirement.


    Adding onto this point, I've personally known a handful of moderators back in the day... a lot of the members of senior moderator and moderator teams spend a LOT of their time working behind the scenes... like, a lot of time. To the point where it's actually rediculous how much time they spend working outside of the server itself. Balancing personal responsibilities and those associated with hands-on responsibilities in some teams makes just playing minigames casually become more and more rare. More often than not, the moderators (in my experience) that spend the majority of their time interracting with community members either happen to have the free time to do so, or are on a team whose job it is to do said interractions (I'm looking at you, CoM! ;) ). But I digress...

    The point is the network's moderators' jobs are not just to moderate games, punish chat offences, or ban hackers... There are a lot of other responsibilities required and those responsibilities take time... Now that I think of it, @Klobby currently holds MTT's world record for most time spent testing maps at 36 hours and 2 minutes in a single month (and that's a community sub-team!)

    Not directly adding onto anything else in your post per se BUT...
    AREA 51 GO BRR!
    If one were to make level requirements a thing, there are possibilities that one could reach the requirements even faster than an average pace due to various events (or weirdness with rewards being given during said events). This is just another reason why levels really don't provide as much insight into one's knowledge of game play as one might think.
     
    Posted May 9, 2021,
    Last edited May 9, 2021
    Fusafez, Jylie and WowCaleb like this.
  10. expierenced players will have more exp and better knowledge of the games themselves, you can't trust someone who knows nothing about a game to moderate it
     
    Posted May 9, 2021
    Ducksicle likes this.
  11. Exactly. You can't expect someone who knows nothing about a game to moderate it and potential moderators definitely need some form of "base" to which one can confidently assume some level of game play knowledge is present while making a consideration..
    As such, how adequate of a measure is judging someone based off of their level in the first place?
    I know people that gained insane levels solely from Area 51 a few times. And while that is definitely in the past now, whose to say it's a one-time deal? Nobody is perfect, especially with regards to reward distributions.
    Additionally, there's also one more factor that needs to be considered here: how much more weight should we be putting on one qualifier vs the other? What are the primary responsibilities associated with a general moderation position? Do we really want to focus more on game knowledge than knowledge of proper interractions between various users? Conflicts, drama, arguments, profanity, etc., are all common areas to which members of various customer service positions often end up in (and yes, moderators are just as much customer servers as the Q/A and dorm monitor in a university housing environment - I'd argue that in many ways they are one in the same...).
    We have positions directly related towards the network's overall content, many of which are publically available as community positions for the exact reasons I listed above. Do we really want to put such an emphasis on game play experience for upcoming trainees vs experience in overall community interractions and overall rule enforcement?
    But back to the levels... If one decides to use level stats as the needed "proof" of knowledge, in my opinion, there's just way too many uncontrollable factors that can make that number increase that don't directly correlate to an individual's level of game play knowledge (let alone create a cause and effect relationship from one to another).
     
    Posted May 9, 2021,
    Last edited May 9, 2021
    Fusafez and WowCaleb like this.
  12. The first point is where we're going to have to agree to disagree. First of all, aspiring staff members regularly play games anyway, because they have to meet the minimum in-game time requirement and Recruitment's expectations for activity during the recruitment process. If you mean that those who have extensively played games before being promoted are the better staff members, then this is a huge generalisation which I don't find to be true. There are so many other qualities which are valued from a staff member, qualities that actually make them a "good" staff member, like being mature, helpful, dedicated, hardworking and responsible. These are things you can't just teach a person. Having experience in games is a great asset, but the knowledge that player has as a result is simply a bonus on top of the more valuable qualities; those which are true and inherent in a person's character from the beginning. Logging onto the server and showcasing these daily is what makes someone a "good" staff member. You can easily teach staff to memorise bits and pieces of information, and all about the different gamemodes on the network. But you can't teach them those characteristics.

    You are correct in saying they are better in their game-related knowledge, but does this make them better overall? That's where it comes down to difference in opinion. There are lower level staff members who are out there answering questions, interacting with the community and being helpful in lobbies, and there are higher level staff members who have played way more games, continue to do so, and work more so in the background. You can't say that x person does this because of their level and so does y person. That's pretty much just what they want to do because of who they are and what they prefer. I don't associate their level with that; it holds no value to do that as it's always going to be a generalisation that is not representative of everyone.

    A staff member who has more game-related knowledge is not better or worse than anyone, because you don't know them; you don't know if they have weaknesses in areas other than games - and they most likely do. They're probably not human otherwise. If we take chat rules as an example, that can lead to false punishments too on their part. Is game knowledge a greater area of strength, and falling down in any other area a lesser weakness? I don't think so.

    Staff should definitely make an attempt to learn more about a game before falsely punishing players, I agree. I spoke about this in another one of your threads, where I mentioned how this is something that perhaps should be more encouraged. The thing is, that staff member is the one who has to take the initiative to learn more, and nobody else can do it for them. StM mentors may not provide you with an in-depth tutorial on that area of the rules after they clarify a false punishment you made; however, I feel as if by informing you and correcting you, they are already encouraging and hoping you would ask for further help if you need it. I think we, as staff members just like to have that reminder sometimes, as we often forget that the best solutions and most obvious ways of getting help are right there in front of us.

    To wrap up this post, yes, the rules are updated quite often. If you're not already in the Mineplex Discord, I recommend joining it using the link discord.mineplex.com to keep track of rule updates in the #announcements channel. As of May 5th, changes were made to the severity of Death Wishes, Malicious Threats, Game Freezing. A few months prior, directly hindering your team in games with two teams was made punishable under Gameplay Trolling, and before that, cross-teaming was changed to be no longer allowed under any circumstances. I just thought I'd name some of the most significant rule changes that happened recently (<1 year ago), but there's plenty more that have been worked in along the way.
     
    Posted May 9, 2021
    Fusafez and Jylie like this.
  13. Who should I be contacting in this case? Would I have to DM an admin or Sr. Mod?

    I don't think you've read this entire thread and the replies I've already given. I never said modmen need to get it right 100% of the time. I said they screw up way too often, and this is bad because it causes even more future work when dealing with appeals for false punishments. In addition, game activity is not the only thing I'm concerned about when talking about potential trainees. I was mainly focusing on the punishment system itself and how lots of staff members don't even understand the server's rules or how to handle them properly.

    Lower level staff who are usually just answering questions should never touch an area they aren't comfortable with in a gamemode. My point is that they should not even attempt to help out in a gamemode that requires prior knowledge, but a lot of staff members still do this because they think they know enough. They can CORRECTLY answer questions in lobby, but don't walk into a game and falsely punish someone just because the reporter convinces them a punishment is necessary. Like I stated earlier, a lot of false information about the punishment system goes around too


    It's not hard to figure out whether a staff member has played more of one gamemode over another. /stats is a thing, and a staff member who plays a specific game a lot will certainly know more than a staff member who doesn't. Therefore, yes there are better staff members for a given area on the server simply because they have more experience.


    Yet I've seen absolutely no attempt of this. Nothing has happened since we discussed this earlier, and probably never will because staff doesn't realize, from a player point of view, how severe this issue is.


    Yes, I'm in the discord and let me rephrase. The most unfair rules are not not being updated because RC is under the impression that since these rules have existed for so many years, they are perfect. I've done my part in discussing sev 1s here on forums as well as with RC and I can tell that they are so convinced that the system is perfect that my suggestions are pretty much pointless, but what they don't understand is that I am a player giving feedback on behalf of myself and an entire community I frequently communicate with online, and we can all collectively agree that the system is very flawed.

    If you have not read through my entire thread as well as the replies, please do not comment. There is way too much reiteration, misunderstandings, and I can't reply to everyone/every point
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 9, 2021,
    Last edited by a Moderator May 10, 2021
    Pumpedpixel likes this.
  14. Hey Ducksicle!

    Thank you for taking the time to write this thread. I want to preface this by saying I have read your thread but I haven't read all of the other replies so I apologize if there is any overlap, I just wanted to give you my full opinion on everything you wrote. To start, I think you bring up a very legitimate concern about staff not being experienced in certain game modes and areas of the server and I agree something should be done to at least mitigate the issues that come from that. I don't think we can 100% solve the problem, which I'm sure you understand, but we can look at ways to mitigate the problem.

    To address your idea about raising IGT and level requirements, I do agree with them, but not so much for what you're wanting them to address which seems to be the general consensus amongst everyone who has replied so far. I agree with raising the IGT requirement because it shows dedication to the network but even then, in the 4.5 years I've been a mentor/assistant, I've very rarely seen a mentee who was close to the 2.1 days of IGT when being accepted. Generally at a minimum I see them closer to the 10 day mark, if not higher. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's quite rare.

    As for a level requirement, I'm not necessarily against it but I don't think it'll have as great of an impact as you'd think. While I know applicants would be applying with a little bit more knowledge and experience, I feel like the majority of aspiring staff members would simply be using that extra time they need playing games they enjoy the most and are already familiar with, rather than really trying to diversify their knowledge of the various games on the network. Nevertheless, I don’t oppose the idea as I think it could help a bit, just not to the extent you may think and I think we’d have to raise the level and IGT requirement to something quite unrealistic in my opinion for the staff members to have the level of knowledge I think you’re hoping they would have.

    I understand the premise of what you’re saying here and I agree with you, ideally we would want a staff member to have strong knowledge of a game before they go into moderate and issue punishments but that isn’t always going to be a reality, I myself have been a staff member for nearly 5 years and there are certain games I’m just not as familiar with which is something I have no shame in admitting because I can say with the utmost confidence that the majority of staff members have games they simply never play and are less comfortable moderating. With that being said, on Staff Management, we always encourage all of our staff to ask for help when they need it because there are going to be situations they are less familiar with and spreading false information, along with issuing false punishments are both issues we try avoiding as much as possible. Are we successful in that endeavour? Clearly not always, but it is something we actively try to prevent.

    With that being said, I’m not a big fan of the concept of staff members simply avoiding situations they are less familiar with because it deprives them of the opportunity to learn and get out of their comfort zone. Sure, if I’m moderating a lobby alongside a CMA and a player wants us to investigate something taking place in Clans, logically it’d make sense to send the CMA since they’re bound to have more experience than me in dealing with Clans-related situations but they may not always be online and I wouldn’t feel great about telling the player “no I’m not experienced in Clans, sorry” without even trying to help. I think staff should be stepping out of their comfort zones, even if that means making mistakes because the worst case scenario is you fix the mistake and a lesson is learned where the mistake won’t be made again. I understand it’s frustrating and it can be a pretty big inconvenience for players to be falsely punished and to be given incorrect information but it is something that helps staff members grow.

    I definitely am in agreement with something like this. I can’t speak for other mentors, but something I personally do is I send out a question of the week for every log that is mandatory for my mods to complete. Each QOTW consists of questions that both reflect recent updates to ensure they are staying on track with server updates and rule changes, along with questions that are a lot more challenging about certain games so they are actually learning new things and I purposefully make them difficult for that reason. I know some mentors have adopted their own type of assessment systems that work for them but I’m not against bringing up having something more uniform across all mentors.

    We are also currently in the process of developing moderation guides for various game modes, certain guides are already in progress/near completion and the Documents team is looking into expanding these guides to other game modes in the future. While a lot of experience is clearly the best alternative to solve the problems you’re experiencing, I believe this is the next best alternative because it gives mentors material to create questions with to better educate staff members, as well as mentees with something quick they can refer to if they are in a situation they’re unfamiliar with and they can get the proper information they need, subsequently leading to fewer false punishments and instances of misinformation being provided.

    TL;DR: I think increasing the IGT and level requirement is a good idea as it demonstrates applicants are more dedicated to Mineplex, not so much because it’ll make a really drastic difference in their knowledge/experience to the extent I think you're hoping it would. I think staff members should be getting in situations they’re less familiar with as it builds experience but they should be asking for help when they need it to avoid issuing false punishments and spreading misinformation. Although mistakes are inevitable, they help staff members grow. I think a more realistic alternative to mitigate the issues that stem from a lack of experience is to build our resource base for staff mentors so a) mentors have more material they can use to test our staff and b) so staff have something they can quickly refer to for accurate information if they’re in a situation where they’re moderating a game mode they are less familiar or completely unfamiliar with.

    I know you’ve heard this from Toki, but reporting instances of misinformation being provided and false punishments is crucial in allowing us to better teach our staff - simply witnessing it and not reporting it isn’t doing anyone any good and won’t result in any kind of positive outcome. If you want to send me a list of things you’ve seen staff get wrong over private message, I’d be happy to look at it and make questions for Trainee QOTDs and Moderator QOTWs too as I am all for getting feedback, regardless of whether it comes from staff or community members.

    Thank you for reading what turned out to be a way longer post than I was envisioning and have a great night!
     
    Posted May 11, 2021
    Lowfears, WowCaleb and Amg like this.
  15. Tbf there are still staff here who have said very inappropriate words / actions and are still on the staff team only due to their seniority / time on the team.
     
    Posted May 11, 2021
    Lowfears, Paladise and Ducksicle like this.
  16. Hi Dan, thanks for replying
    I understand what you mean, and I somewhat agree. I think my concern, more specifically, is when a staff member is less familiar with SSM (my main game). I think it's perfectly fine for staff to moderate cw, sg, glads, sw, uhc if they're comfortable with either or any of these gamemodes because most of the hacks used appear the same. The reason I see false punishments happened too often is because SSM is so different than other pvp games on the server, and without realizing, staff are in a position where they are more likely to mess up. If a staff member doesn't know much about SSM, including movements (directional vs nondirectional, double/triple/quad jumps, kit abilities, etc) they should probably stay away from those reports, for many of them mistaken these things as cheating. I know some staff get a second opinion or just wait for someone else to take care of these reports, but maybe they can spectate with another moderator in that server to learn instead of taking initiative themselves and potentially false punish? I don't know, but there can certainly better ways of learning than from messing up.

    That's great, but I really hope those in charge are seriously listening to players in this process. Overall, I've had pretty bad responses from Sr. Mods/RC when discussing this topic. One moment a staff member tells me there's enough guides/information provided to them, and then later another staff member will say that not enough resources are available.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 11, 2021
    Lowfears likes this.
  17. I can totally agree with this. If you scroll up, you will see some things that do not seem appropriate for staff to say to players on forums, especially when our intentions are to help improve the server. I can tell that there's a lot of stubbornness and attitude that comes through several replies I've gotten.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 11, 2021
    Lowfears likes this.
  18. I would like trainees to have clans time and knowledge of how each class works because 3 out of 5 mods don’t know that flash fly is a hack and that mix armor is banable. I just want mods to have a good understanding of clans because most of the mods don’t
     
    Posted May 11, 2021
    Ducksicle likes this.
  19. Just to provide you with a quick answer to this question, the most preferable option would be to message the staff member's supervisor with the information. If they are a Trainee/Moderator, then the first point of contact there would be their mentor. You can check out this document that tells you which Staff Management mentor each mentee is under. If they are a Sr. Mod, you would contact the Admin of their Sr. Mod team. That information can be found on the document linked above too. For example, if they were on Clans Management, you would contact Flaym.

    Of course, they are better experienced in that area of the server, and usually that means they're better at moderating it. I was just speaking on how that doesn't make them better staff members in general; when you said "better staff members are often people who have regularly played games on the server before applying for their position" it seemed like you were implying that. It was an easy sentence to misinterpret but if that's not what you were saying, then thank you for clarifying.

    Some of the points you made have been addressed by Ryan above, and as Staff Management himself he knows the real deal about what's going on behind the scenes in relation to documents and whatnot so I'll leave it to him. When you said there hasn't been much improvement in the field of issuing false punishments, perhaps the focus is on pushing out those moderation guides. Encouragement to peruse them is something I hope will follow, because like I mentioned earlier or in another thread, it's the staff member's decision as to whether they want to benefit from the learning resource or not. Unless its content is worked into tests for Moderators, Question of the Weeks for Moderators, etc. which would be a promising initiative. As a staff member who would be required to take them, I would be more than happy to do so - there's always more to learn even if it's the gamemode I consider myself most experienced in.

    These things do take time, and I'd rather be assured they will happen eventually than not at all. Better late than never, in other words. Moderation docs take a while to be produced and equally it takes a while for the moderation team to get to grips with them - for those who are less experienced, there will most likely be that awkward phase of trial and error, asking their mentor for clarification, and so on and so forth until the learning curve is beat. But at least you know that after the correct resources and guidance arrive and are delivered successfully, the results will be well worth it in the long run.

    I'm sure lots of players agree with you, community and staff members alike no doubt. But as Arjun mentioned in another thread, majority opinion isn't a factor in getting the rules changed. It's more so about the points that are made and whether they're enough to initiate a discussion within RC. I don't necessarily think their reasoning behind denying a rule change is that it's been around for a long time, rather that they've heard the same proposal before and rejected it, and nothing new is added to the argument when the topic resurfaces. If new perspectives are offered, I'm fairly confident they will talk it over and see if it changes anything (though that can probably be better confirmed by an RC member).

    Whenever there's a rule that leads me to think "I would like to see this change", I generally do my research first to see what stances other community members, staff members, and RC themselves take on it. Don't get me wrong, there will always be rules that require change - that is proven by the rules updates - but it's always worth considering the reasoning behind RCs decisions on the off chance you might be able to see things from their perspective, even to some extent. Sometimes I might still disagree, and that's fine - it's just if you have that prior understanding of what they're thinking, it helps a great deal. And that's not necessarily to you, it's to anyone who tries to get the rules changed because unfortunately a lot of people think collectively agreeing on something and taking a big stand is the best way to go. Having valid points to introduce and ideas to offer, and going about it in a responsible manner may not always guarantee the results you want, but from what I've seen it guarantees your voice will be listened to.
     
    Posted May 11, 2021
  20. Okay, now that this was suggested by a modman on this thread and the idea was agreed between multiple people as a reasonable way to somewhat solve this issue, how do we put this into place? Who would be in charge of questioning modmen, Sr. Mods? Admins? Whoever it is, can someone please contact them and do something about it so that this suggestion isn't forgotten a week later?


    The only reason I say this is their reasoning is because they've told me this themselves. I constantly hear "I don't think it's worth changing this because it's been around for over half a decade and has been doing fine," which these issues are NOT fine. If they weren't fine, people like me wouldn't still be complaining about it. Even on this thread you can see Dul reply to me with this exact response. Toki said the same thing when I last spoke about those issues privately.
     
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted May 11, 2021

Share This Page