Application process policy draft

    Hey guys, I'm working on a policy for the application process and would appreciate community input on how you guys think it should look like and how it should work.

    This is a link to a google doc where I wrote up the initial draft.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nB…we7O59UrXV3bdE/

    I basically wrote how it currently works with a few minor changes. I am very open to criticism and suggestions for changes. This is by no means final.

    I am also sure that I have forgotten scenarios in the "Complications" section so do let me know.

    Appreciate any feedback,
    the EAO team

    Quote

    @elmon#19890 Appreciate any feedback,
    the EAO team

    the formalities are making me fucking cringe

    ok so this is actually quite more specific compared to other policies listed here. one loophole i should keep quiet put point out anyway is

    Quote

    3 recommendations from 3 different Senior Administrators, Executives or the Owner.

    i can fucking rec myself for senior by this logic lol

    assrix, assryx, asterisk, *

    awesomeist tf blokey

    @lyicx#19891

    Quote

    3 recommendations from 3 different Senior Administrators, the Executive Admin Officer, the Executive Ban Manager, or the Owner - excluding the applicant if they hold one of those positions.

    Does the 30 or 60 days of playtime mean just 30 or 60 days of logging in? Seems like this would be the way but could just be made a bit clearer especially with playtime being used as the total time spent on the server more often than not.

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

    @Folfy_Blue#19904 I think he means, if you currently possess a senior recommendation, the required total playtime would only be 30 days - however the required total playtime would be 60 with a normal admin recommendation.

    @Folfy_Blue#19907 I've a funny feeling it's 30 days of playing on the server rather than 30 days total time on the server. It's just not well worded.

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

    • Suggesting a title for the application thread is useless because no one sticks to it, unless you want to actually want to start denying applications on a technicality.
    • Being a member of the Discord server is not a requirement you can set because it is currently possible for an admin to be temporarily banned from the Discord server without being suspended ingame.
    • You give yourself the ability to approve an application early if it has "overwhelming approval", but not to deny it early if it obviously doesn't meet the requirements
    • The way the text is formatted makes it seem like the rule about applicants responding to questions only applies to Admin applications and not Senior Admin applications.
    • You did not define anywhere what "70% Approval" actually means. Is it the ratio of vouches to objections? Can I go neutral, and if so, how does that affect approval? If I leave a positive comment on an application but don't vouch, does that count towards approval?
    Quote

    @StevenNL2000#19935 Suggesting a title for the application thread is useless because no one sticks to it, unless you want to actually want to start denying applications on a technicality.

    I'd like to formalize it for consistency, I wouldn't be denying applications rather just changing the title.

    Quote

    @StevenNL2000#19935 Being a member of the Discord server is not a requirement you can set because it is currently possible for an admin to be temporarily banned from the Discord server without being suspended ingame.

    Is it possible to be banned from the forum and not be suspended? If so I don't really see the difference.

    I'll include this clause
    If you are banned from the discord temporarily you may not apply for a promotion until you have been unbanned.

    Quote

    @StevenNL2000#19935 You give yourself the ability to approve an application early if it has "overwhelming approval", but not to deny it early if it obviously doesn't meet the requirements

    Changed to this
    The community will then proceed to vote on the application for the next 14 days where the application will be left open. If the Executive Admin Officer deems the application to have “overwhelming approval” then it may be closed early and approved. The Executive Admin Officer may also deny an application early if they see fit due to it not meeting the requirements or otherwise.

    Quote

    @StevenNL2000#19935 The way the text is formatted makes it seem like the rule about applicants responding to questions only applies to Admin applications and not Senior Admin applications.

    Fixed

    Quote

    @StevenNL2000#19935 You did not define anywhere what "70% Approval" actually means. Is it the ratio of vouches to objections? Can I go neutral, and if so, how does that affect approval? If I leave a positive comment on an application but don't vouch, does that count towards approval?

    Clarified.

    Why is there a difference between a recommendation for Admin vs. Senior Admin?

    Quote

    In the event of the recommending admin being removed; if they were not removed for misconduct & the application was submitted before they were removed, their recommendation remains valid.

    For Senior Administrator Applications, if they are removed before the voting window starts, then the recommendation is no longer valid.

    If an Admin is only removed for inactivity, then why shouldn't their vote continue to count if made when they were Admin?

    Quote

    A player holding the master builder position [Can vote]

    Why do MBs get special privileges in this regard? Could jwmphall (can't recall if they're still MB) then vote?

    Quote

    A player that is active on the forums & is not indefinitely banned from the server.
    A player that is active in-game.
    A player that is active on discord & is not indefinitely banned from the server.

    Why do you require people to be active in order to vote? The application is meant as a discussion board with arguments put forth / against the applicant. If a (non-active) individual is swayed by said arguments to either said, then surely their opinion would be meaningful as well?

    Quote

    @elmon#19940 Is it possible to be banned from the forum and not be suspended? If so I don't really see the difference.

    Theoretically, yes, but I don't think that has ever happened. The forum and the Discord server are treated very differently. I've seen someone say before that if you think about it, it is pretty ridiculous that it would ever be necessary to mute a fellow staff member in Discord and still say that they are suitable to be staff.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#19941 Why is there a difference between a recommendation for Admin vs. Senior Admin?

    I'm not sure what you mean, the paragraph you quoted says the following:
    In a situation where an admin recommends an OP, and then the OP goes and submits an application. If the Admin is removed for inactivity while the application is submitted, their recommendation remains valid. (as long as the OP had submitted the application before the removal).
    Senior Admin is the same concept, but it is clarified slightly because the voting system is slightly different, so I've included a section to take that into account.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#19941 Why do MBs get special privileges in this regard? Could jwmphall (can't recall if they're still MB) then vote?

    Why do you require people to be active in order to vote? The application is meant as a discussion board with arguments put forth / against the applicant. If a (non-active) individual is swayed by said arguments to either said, then surely their opinion would be meaningful as well?

    Jwmphall isn't an MB anymore. This whole clause of who gets to vote is created in order to filter between people, to avoid someone who hasn't been on the server in 3 years coming back and voting when they have no idea what they are voting on. I find a whitelist of who can vote to be better than making a list of who can't.

    The MB is included because as an MB you are considered active to some degree within the community, with master builders having their own activity policy. Basically, if you hold an active role in the server I consider that as having enough involvement to be allowed to vote.

    Nothing is stopping "Non-active" individuals from posting on the thread with their opinion, that clause only says that their individual vote won't be counted

    Bump - edited the senior process to include a Senior Voting round which is a discussion-based voting round

    • After those 14 days, voting is halted. The votes are counted by the Executive Admin Officer, the application that pass the minimum threshold then move on to the Senior Voting round, where a discussion-based voting process will begin.
    • This process will last up to 7 days where the applicant is reviewed by the Senior Admins and a conclusion is determined based on the qualitative information gathered by the votes in this round and the public voting round. Based on this, the applicants who pass are announced and the ones who don’t are privately messaged with a list of things to work on decided during the Senior Voting round.

    ↩  elmon

    Quote

    Jwmphall isn't an MB anymore. This whole clause of who gets to vote is created in order to filter between people, to avoid someone who hasn't been on the server in 3 years coming back and voting when they have no idea what they are voting on. I find a whitelist of who can vote to be better than making a list of who can't.

    The MB is included because as an MB you are considered active to some degree within the community, with master builders having their own activity policy. Basically, if you hold an active role in the server I consider that as having enough involvement to be allowed to vote.

    Nothing is stopping "Non-active" individuals from posting on the thread with their opinion, that clause only says that their individual vote won't be counted

    You didn't answer me. If the application is not meant for discussion, but merely voting, then why even have the ability to converse? Regardless of my activity, I should be (by the current system) able to form an opinion on the applicant based on the evidence put forth against / for him.

    ↩  Miwojedk While true, when talking about applications especially, the only evidence really given is against the applicant. There's not enough evidence for both sides usually and I don't think I've ever seen players providing the same level of evidence (chat logs, screenshots etc) in favour of the applicant than they would against.

    Of course, you can say the vouch or rec of a trusted community member is evidence alone, but I still think there's nothing like being on the server and interacting with a person at least occasionally.

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.