Yes I am, I don't see how that's relevant. I don't deal with any complaints, contracts etc to do with VoE as I understand people may think that I'm being bias. I don't understand the potatoes either, I completely agree with the suggestion.

 

Just to play devils advocate here, but how involved is too involved?

Staff member A is giving a loan to Player.
Staff member B gave A the money to loan.
Staff member C is A's best friend.
Staff member D runs a competing loan business.
Staff member E is D's best friend.
Staff member F is owed money by Player.
Staff member G has also borrowed money from A.
Staff member H has borrowed money from Player.
Staff member I has agreed to a cut of profits from A's loans.
Staff member J is Player's best friend.
Staff member K hates A.
Staff member L hates Player.
Staff member M hates D.
Staff member N used to be business partners with A but isn't anymore.
Staff member O has borrowed money from A before, but doesn't owe A any money.

All of these are realistic circumstances and I'm curious as to how involved is too involved? Because "involved" is broad, and every circumstance listed is "involved". Who gets to handle the contract?

Obviously some are. Some might not be. But what's what?

 

tl:dr
Too many staff Members

 

Zedo, Your post is so pointless trying to reply to it isn't even quoting anything so that I can reply.

He's saying he doesn't do that and agrees with the suggestion.

 

c,d,e,g(needs more details), h same thing, j, k, l, d, n, o
are allowed to. it is in the present moment. Hating/being friends with should theoretically not be a factor

 

Obviously +1.

As usual you lay it down beautifully and then punt it right out of the field, @UnitedStates2.

And you, @Nicit6 you wise one you make some dynamite counterpoint.

To my way of thinking we could really use 1 or 2 more clars/oreos. Any complaint with over 10 replies obviously needs a peek from someone that high up and they can decide if the mod handling it has a vested interest or even handle it efficiently themselves.

Of course any SA is going to be involved with gameplay too but these are users who over and over proved their commitment to the server and justice and I think it would be best to let them make a judgment call rather than making some weird "six degrees to Kevin bacon" style mod involvement chart...

 

That's not the suggestion, though. All of my listed points could have an effect on the situatution, all are involved. Your / @xX3PICREBELXx suggestion states that people involved shouldn't work on it, period.

We really don't, though. SA's are meant to be team leader. Having too many simply causes confusion. We just need stuff taken care of in a timely manner. It doesn't take more than an minute to at-a-glance something like that, and no more than 5 to fully look into it for that reason.

 

This would be absolutely my own thoughts except it seems our existing team leaders don't have the adequate time. They do amazing work but that whole mess that is causing this suggestion has been unspooling for days now and if I ever am honored by the opportunity to be in a leadership position, I'd be hopping up to get in their and crack some heads together until everyone is happy ;) jk.

The leadership should be a small number but a capable number and I really think we could use another pair of hands in there personally.

Otherwise we get into the impossibility complex issue that you fleshed out for us of what amount of involved is too involved? Because moderators are valuable members of the economy and community as much as they enforce rules.

 

I mean, I've been in the position. I did the same job with one of me. This isn't a job you add "another pair of hands" to. You only give it to hands you know will get things done. When I stopped being able to attend to my duties in that position as quickly as I thought they should be, I stepped down. I don't want to incite something or speak badly of the SA's but honestly, if things aren't getting done, they need to either do them promptly or find someone who can.

 

A, B, C, F, H, I, J, K, L, and N all have bias toward a complaint toward Player. Not all of these are strong biases, however it is up to the staff members above those named to decide if the bias is enough for them not to handle a complaint.

To what was mentioned by Zedoker that being friend or "hating" someone not being a bias toward, being friends with or disliking someone is a very strong bias. Usually those with such a bias will either be overly harsh or not harsh enough.

 

You were the SA here, I have to bow to the fact that you know better no matter how I think that just one more pair of hands could only help. I just think there really needs to be more coordinated, unified, and consistent moderation and nothing would ever get to 50+ posts of bickering. And it seems we have a lot of mods/supermods so I can't help but think we need bigger guns.

I can't help but wonder where the hell have the SAs been and why wasn't it in that thread like... yesterday.

 

Total a +1 and yes with that.

 

The likelihood that anything is that complex is..pretty slim. ECC's community isn't that tight-knit, and also not small enough to have so few businesses to have direct competitors. This is also only outlining loans. Staff members shouldn't be handling any form of complaint they are related to, including reported posts, harassment, grudges, hacking, or any other instances of breaking a rule or abusing any system, service, or platform of ECC.

And with the "example," and most scenarios, relevancy and evaluating current relations is key (and not hard). For example with K hating A - that is so stupidly vague. K may only hate A for...swearing, or something minor, but not enough to be like "I hate how vulgar they are, but that hate is completely irrelevant to loans so it won't affect my judgement on loans." And I'll be damned if the Staff members are too dense and lacking the ability to separate those types of differences with emotions and feelings...

It's about common sense and a quick moment of talking with other Staff members to see who has the least relation. Sure, if there is the very rare case that EVERYONE has a relation - even minuscule like "oh I did ONE job for this guy and never spoke to him again" - then you find the person/people who have the least possible relation to the specific case. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be the best available choice. And Staff members using common sense to not handle something that they know they are involved in enough to have clouded judgement. If being logical and using the best humanly available resources is too much, then might as well throw everything out and let things always look unprofessional, sketchy, be broken, etc.

Nothing has to be perfect. Things just need to be better. And deciding stuff that deals with humans and common sense shouldn't be done with rare extremes.

 

Oh, forgot to mention +110

 

If anything, Nicit's hypothetical situation means the exact opposite; too few staff members, as there's so little staff members that everyone has a certain relationship with everyone. I don't see how you're coming to the conclusion that it necessarily means too many staff members.

 

I'm inclined to agree. We need more or we need more whom we can trust as much as we do our Clar and Oreo.

 

I'm not in favor of more SAs. When you have four different people with different views, almost nothing will get done. We need an SA who can do the right things and get shit done, not 4 SAs who will just endlessly argue due to their divergent viewpoints. More staff? Perhaps if needed, but the staff team needs serious reform before that, including actually taking action against moderators who aren't doing their jobs properly or at all for the matter and more consistency in following the guidelines/enforcing the rules as a whole.

 

BUT the lower staff appear to spend most of the time tripping over their own wieners tryin to get stuff figured out. I'm not saying you or nicit must be wrong, but I really don't see a reason to totally cast the idea of promoting more staff/adding more stuff aside as a solution.

 

SAs are meant to lead the team as a whole, not do the day-to-day things that most GAs and lower work on. Your argument for more SAs is that there's too few to get shit done like handle complex complaints - However that isn't what SAs are exactly for. They're meant to lead the team as a whole, not handle complaints or ban appeals usually - If you want more complex situations/complaints to be dealt with, that calls for more GAs, but not necessarily SAs.

Why no more SAs? SAs are supposed to represent the staff team as a whole - It makes no sense to have multiple leaders of staff and when you do, it often leads to confusion among other things, like divergence in opinions between SAs. And when you have 4 people who often disagree with each other, there's almost never a consensus in opinion, which means shit doesn't get done.