New staff - Who decides?

Discussion in 'Members & Staff' started by Namorat, Jan 7, 2013.

  1. Namorat

    Namorat Duder

    3,273
    762
    +213
    I wondered, not about the methods of choosing your moderators or other stuff in general, but who decides whom to make staff.

    Obviously this is a question aimed rather at folks who already have a team of staffers and are looking for new blood for whatever reason that people who start out looking for the first time, but I am interested in anyone's opinion :)

    So, if you have some applications or looked at members or however you gather information about possible new staff, will you as admin decide in each and every instance? Do you discuss the matter with your team and decide then or do you let your trusted team choose whom to promote to their ranks? What has been proven best?
     
  2. Akela

    Akela viam aut inveniam...

    2,333
    432
    +156
    For me personally, my entire (active) team has to agree. If they don't, it is a veto or wait longer kind of situation.

    Reasons:
    1. My team makes better decisions than I do on my own.

    2. Lets face it, moderators and admins spend more time working with their counterparts than forum owners do.
     
  3. Namorat

    Namorat Duder

    3,273
    762
    +213
    I agree with your view, because I assume this is the best way in many cases, but it demands a lot of trust a lot of admins don't seem to have, even though it is their own staff that would counsel them.
     
  4. Akela

    Akela viam aut inveniam...

    2,333
    432
    +156
    An excellent observation and in many cases those admins are justified.

    The trick is to pick the first few moderators well and filter out those you have made a mistake regarding. Then one will notice (with either great pain or relief) that their team is way more capable than they themselves are.
     
  5. LeadCrow

    LeadCrow Apocalypse Admin

    6,445
    1,232
    +2,186
    Existing staff.

    1. admins can propose candidates to the rest of staff to discuss, on the basis of needs and empowering select users with desirable expertise
    2. mods can propose empowering select passionate users with expertise.

    The closer to the candidates, the more insightful and useful any commentary would be.
    Admins shouldn't have complete say on this because picks have to be well received by the rest of staff, so even any additions not subjected to feedback should give the illusion that feedback is welcomed, to prevent a forum's team from collapsing unnecessarily.
    The whole process of seeking new staffers is to improve collaboration on handling forum matters after all.
     
  6. Namorat

    Namorat Duder

    3,273
    762
    +213
    Regarding point 2, do you think mods should propose any member they deem fit for the task or only after the admin has explained that he deliberates to promote anyone in general?
     
  7. LeadCrow

    LeadCrow Apocalypse Admin

    6,445
    1,232
    +2,186
    Proposing's free, but any candidates are to be subjected to feedback and absence of vetos.
    Passive or little feedback can be detrimental to the hiring process, in which case more should be sought (by direct input or though investigation) instead of calling it a day and risk adding individuals that could prove to not have deserved to be empowered.
    After all, staffing requires respectable individuals inspiring confidence, trust and goodwill.

    Mere users are sollicitied only for content creation and do not need to be assigned different priorities that would keep them from being and remaining active in the activity type they are more proficient at
     
  8. JessJ

    JessJ Enthusiast

    145
    58
    +18
    The staff members and myself, of course.
    Make a thread, add a poll, and get the staff team's opinions.

    Just because they don't like someone doesn't mean I won't hire them though, because at the end of the day, I'm the one who has to live with the decision that I made. So it better be a good one.
     
  9. Tatl

    Tatl Developer

    125
    83
    +15
    S-mods/admins can suggest anyone in a separate management forum. We all vote and if the person has majority approval after a certain amount of time, they're added as moderators. Even if every admin votes no, a person can still become a mod if every s-mod votes yes, because currently there are more s-mods than admins on the forum.
     
  10. Namorat

    Namorat Duder

    3,273
    762
    +213
    So you stick with the majorities decision even if you as a single person voted against the nominee?
     
  11. Taylor

    Taylor Sexier Than You

    963
    662
    +181
    Depends on the person's level of access. For a reporter or moderator applicant, we allow each site/category manager to make their own staffing decisions. If problems arise, we'll talk to them about it. For a site/category manager applicant, we require an application and give our board of directors 48 hours to object. If no objections are received, the person is hired. Lastly, if we are considering adding a director to sit on our board, we require a nomination from an existing director, a pretty extensive interview, and unanimous approval from all directors.
     
  12. NickCF

    NickCF I come from a land Down Under...

    710
    442
    +240
    Me and my co-admin are not the owners of our site. There is a site owner, but he just keeps the site running in terms of financials, hosting company etc. Me and my co-admin basically run the community how we see fit; there is a lot of trust from the owner.

    The process for getting a new staff member is that any staff member (global mod, super mod or admin) can nominate a member they think would be a good moderator. A thread is created and we have a staff discussion. Usually there is unanimous agreement or disagreement, but the admins always do some investigating on the member who is nominated. Admins can veto a nomination, but that's only happened once that I recall in my time. If there's one or two moderators who don't really like the idea of that person becoming a mod, we discuss those reasons. Usually they're good reasons and that person isn't made a moderator.
     
  13. Namorat

    Namorat Duder

    3,273
    762
    +213
    Do those stated reasons have to be based on facts or are the mods allowed to voice opinions based on a subjective reason? If two mods simply say they don't like the personality of that possible staff member as far as they know him?
     
  14. RightfullyDead

    RightfullyDead Participant

    76
    13
    +8
    ME.

    I used to make it democratic. Now I simply don't care. Had too many issues with the community picking their buddies and then I'd be left several weeks later with either the mod too afraid of pissing off people...or the mod with the big ego.
     
  15. GasaiYuno

    GasaiYuno Adherent

    399
    90
    +12
    Yep, this is how it had always worked for my own forums in the past.
     
  16. Akela

    Akela viam aut inveniam...

    2,333
    432
    +156
    No.

    Then the candidate is vetoed or we wait longer to observe him/her.
    This method may not work for every situation, of course. You have to already have a good/mature moderator base to start with.

    Are all of your mods - buddies? Because, in my experience, the ability of one and any mod to veto any candidate takes care of the issue.
     
  17. RightfullyDead

    RightfullyDead Participant

    76
    13
    +8
    Not anymore. I abandoned that cess pool lol.

    No none of them we're buddies. One got a big ego, and managed to suck up enough to my partner to bend his ear and that was the end of it. The mod was in control. She forced every other moderator off, an admin, and me - one of the site founders. She turned an honest bias free political forum into the equivalent of soviet russia on the web, a fan club for her buddies.

    That's why that forum is dead, and mine (in my sig) is thriving. :centerofuniverse:
     
  18. Akela

    Akela viam aut inveniam...

    2,333
    432
    +156
    Your story makes me wonder why we haven't run into a similar issue at Latin D. I wonder if this is because we watch a member for at least a year before promoting. I don't remember considering anyone with manipulative tendencies...

    People are easier to watch when you have a long time to do it...

    Or perhaps, we've just been lucky.
     
  19. RightfullyDead

    RightfullyDead Participant

    76
    13
    +8
    Lucky maybe. We actually had that member for a long time. She changed after awhile. Her fan club showed up 8 months later and that was it :-/

    Now all the good members have run off, some over to my forum, which I created when I left. It's in my sig. We're doing better than the other site is.
     
  20. Akela

    Akela viam aut inveniam...

    2,333
    432
    +156
    This does not sound good for the other site.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.