I like this idea.

 

"Test" ban appeals would be rather pointless, as moderators don't handle them (supermod+), so this isn't really something that should matter when picking moderators. As far as complaints go, it would be silly having people work on them, because the evidence is always, to a certain degree, subjective. What exactly is and isn't enough evidence changes depending on the situation.

Also, many new staff members are still learning. You don't go in knowing how to do the job, you learn.

and anyway you not liking the way they're handled is really no basis for anyone being wrong in the first place.

 

This would be a good hypothetical question addition.

 

If you feel there is an issue with how a staff member is filing a complaint the best thing to do is to file a staff complaint. That way Andrewkm can decide if the issue was handled properly or not.

As for appeals, the same thing.

On a side note, we don't expect anyone to know exactly how to handle a complaint or an appeal when the start. A lot of things are handled on a case by case basis. A lot of moderators beginnings on staff is learning the ropes. Same thing with ban appeals which are only handled by SuperMods+. One does not just know how to handle any given issue. Thats why we have teamwork.

For example: Lets say I go to handle an appeal for donation scamming and hypothetically, I've never handled one of those. The best thing to do would be for me to ask my fellow Senior Staff what they think and we come to a consensus.

This all being said, I don't see an issue with a simplistic complaint being added to the hypotheticals considering that our hypotheticals are already the same concept.

 

isn't this what they are being tested on?

Also, yes, you go in learning. But you should have to show that you have some capability of being able to handle it.

 

Fair enough, I'm just curious as to what issues you are referring to and feel that if it really is a problem Andrew should be aware of it so it can be sorted out. That being said, I don't think saying the 'problem responses' in here would be a good idea, but, letting Andrew know might fix the problem.

 

Alot of new.mods make desicions that are on the fence but make the wrog desision if they have the choice to warn a player or let it go why not warn then?!? I see where your comin from

i like cheese-not just any cheese chilli cheese

 

I agree with Revan.

However, I would like to also add that, if there was a test complaint on the Staff application... Being that it is the same test complaint for everyone, many people will copy others. How would we be able to tell if the person answered all by themselves without reading other peoples' apps, or if they copied? How would we be able to tell if they truly understand?

 

Many complaints actually aren't something that is just handled in one response. The ones which are for things like inappropriate language for example, aren't complicated. Putting something like that into the application wouldn't tell you much about an applicant. The more contentious complaints often require a dialogue between Staff and the parties involved. This would tell you something about an applicant, however it isn't possible to give everyone a situation in which there could be a dialogue/responses given as this would be far too time consuming to do for every applicant.

 

When picks happen, how can they know if you are using your "common sense" or just went to the complaint forums and copy-pasted every single thing?