• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Just a suggestion :)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ProfessorKukui4Life

ProfessorKukui4Life

Messages
17,181
Reaction score
5,029
Hey there.

So about this thread. Being apart of many different threads lately, i've come to realize something. And I wanted to take the time to make this because many here I get along with greatly. Just a suggestion, no more. If it doesn't work out, totally understandable.

So my suggestion is this: Recruit members to be stand-in/support staff. What I mean by this, is, we take capable normal users here that aren't actual staff and make them support staff to help uphold the entirety of the wikia. Purpose of this? Was just getting to that!

The purpose of this suggestion is to help our own staff, that much we all can see. But it goes further than that. Our own staff work so hard to do everything they possibly can to do [insert here] for ours and the entire sites sake of remaining regulated. They always give 100% and more into their responsibilities here, even when having their own things to do IRL. To make the story short, our admins do such a great job here and there are times where they deserve time off from their positions here, even when they can't. That is why I suggested this to show our appreciaition in a way. As regular users, maybe we should try and help contribute more to make it easier for our staff. How would this work?

Well, if we were to make normal users "admins", they wouldnt exactly be regular staff. They would remain regular users. However, lets say for example some of the staff need to leave the wiki, temporarily of course, for any reason. From IRL issues to just needing a step back from things. Regular users could act as their "stand-ins" for as long as they need to stay away. That way, things can remain stable and our staff can take as much time as they need to without needing to be in a rush to get back into things. Of course, not just any normal user here. It would be up to the staff themselves to decide who'd be capable enough to be listed as such, if my suggestion works out of course.

That is all I wanted to say. Just something to try and take a load off of the staff :) . If it cannot happen, no problem. Thank you for reading :) .
 
Kinda, more like tempoarary ones. You don't have to completely take the position, just be a stand in for another staff member who needs to focus on things outside the Wikia for some time until they come back. Unless they left for good that is anyway.
 
I can agree to this to an extent. However I mean a decent amount of users already do this by keeping an eye out for vandalizers and dupes reporting them to the rule violation thread. Unless you mean something else.
 
I like the idea, but I am also quite iffy on it. I'll see where this goes however. It sounds good on paper. But execution is a whole 'nother issue.
 
Well the best way would be for any current staff member to chose the "back-up staff" for them personally if they find them suitable.
 
@Knight

Oh yes I actually do mean something different. I'll give a scnerio.

Say we accept this, and list normal users as back up staff. They don't have to do actual staff work while real staff are in progress of doing their jobs. They'd still act as regular members here.

Now, pretend 5-6 of our staff suddenly need to leave because they're either over worked, need to focus on school, or other problems that keep them from coming online to the site. If that happens, we then take 5-6 out of the support staff list and make them temporary replacements to do their jobs while their gone. Once the actual staff come back to regular routine, the support staff let them take it from there and they don't have to do any more work until they're needed. Does it make sense?

@Gargoyle One

The same way staff would choose new staff members actually. They can decide which regular users would be right for the back-up positions based on time management, judgement, and/or other qualities that would could make them staff.
 
It looks good.

If that's how we make staff members I don't see an issue with this.
 
So essentially, this post is referring to a process of keeping a pool of 'reserve' admins to step in whenever an existing staff member takes a break? Kind of like how workplaces call in part-timers during their off days for the sake of filling in for employees who're missing from their shifts for whatever reason?
 
Yeah pretty much that. I notice some staff usually need to leave for whatever they need to get done, which shortens the number of existing staff here. Or in a few cases staff need to suddenly permanently go, unfortunately, and they don't get replaced. That kind of stuff puts more workload on the admins.

So I thought this idea could fix that and then some.
 
I'll contact Antvasima since we would preferably need his OK for this to be accepted.
 
However, normal users must have a say here too as they need to decide if they want the positions as well, depending on how staff picks the users like they would normally do.
 
Well, as others have said, it sounds great on paper. And I believe they already allow users themselves to decline admin positions offered to them, should the latter feel the need to do so.

I do feel like the 'recruiting' process for this would almost certainly have to be carried out by the wiki's Bureaucrats though, or the admins who've been here the longest. People who would have a well-honed sense of judgment for this sort of thing.

We'd also need to keep a list, since it would be impossible to tell these 'stand-ins' apart from regular users.
 
I mean 'in addition' to the current pre-existing staff list, yeah. Mods can easily be discerned by their name colors. These new recruits wouldn't have such a thing identifying them as what they are.
 
@MrKing

Oh yeah that could be a bit of an issue. However it isn't something we couldnt get by. It isn't as if Staff will drop like flies to get the temporary ones in to take over for a bit all the time. It'll be very rare for much of staff to be too busy to come online and even then, only an X amount of back-up staff would be required, not all. So really it depends on the number of staff off-duty and the number of back ups needed on-duty.

Just simply give the back-ups colors when they are needed then switch them back when uneeded and rinse and repeat. The chance of this being done a lot is very slim.
 
I'm honestly a bit unsure myself, since there are a lot of ways this could go foul. But if there's a way to execute it smoothly, I personally don't oppose it.
 
I see. Understable, though would you please list the possible fouls that could come from this so we can see if we can get solutions for them?
 
I think bureaucrats are the only ones who can promote. Like, I don't think I could actually promote anyone. Not because it'd be breaking rules, but because my admin privileges literally don't have the coding for it.
 
Possible fouls? Well:

  • There's the obvious issue of what happens if one of these 'stand-ins' does something stupid with their privileges.
  • There's the matter of possible disputes over how much authority the 'stand-ins' would have in comparison to 'full-time' admins, as well as what might happen if one side were to oppose a decision made by another.
  • Staff Only threads would become a strange/vague area as far as who's allowed to speak in them. (read: whether or not the 'stand-ins' should have any say in said threads or not)
  • There's the matter of what happens if the pool of 'stand-ins' starts to dry up, leaving less people to take up the roles left behind by 'full-timers' who are on a break.
  • And then there's the matter of 'thread highlighting' privileges and whether or not the 'stand-ins' should be entrusted with them.
These were just a few of the potential snarls I was able to think of off the top of my head.
 
Hmm I see. Fair points. Well, with all due respect:

Points 1, 3, and 5 are pretty easy to cover by the fact that the stand-ins would be solely chosen by the actual existing staff. They can offer to become stand-ins, yes, but that won't mean they automatically get it. It would be the same process of choosing any new staff like always. They can only become stand-in's if the staff deem them capable based on performance here on the site

Point 2, is also covered by something. The stand-ins would get the same authority as the admin they cover for. For example, say if Cal needed to leave for X reason. When he leaves, a stand-in comes in to lift his weights. That stand-in would only be specifically a discussion mod, nothing else. Or if Kaltias needed to leave, his stand in is specifically an adminstrator. That kind of thing.

For Point 4, this I can understand why it'd be an issue. However remember, its also up to normal users if they want to sign up for the position. While its up to regular staff if they cut it, we also cannot force people to be stand-ins. It needs to be up to them and they wouldnt volunteer if they didn't have usual free time, no? Plus like said before, its not like staff would switch people in and out in a snap. They'd only get stand ins if it was an emergency or they really needed a break from the site because of their hardwork.
 
I'm 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that Ant will view this idea as horribly dangerous for all of the reasons. As it is, we are already working for a solution to wifi efficiency with all staff members present.

My remarks:

Admins aren't the only staff. That said, what's the purpose of taking normal-non staff members and making them psuedo-admins as opposed to selecting a discussion mod, content mod, calc group member, or ex-staff (pretty much anyone with actual experience)?

Trust is a big factor here too. I more or less agree with the arguments stated above.
 
I mainly agree with Matt, Dragon and UMR.
 
We have to be extremely careful not to promote any members to staff that we are not almost certain are sufficiently reliable, rational, and reasonable to be able to handle the responsibility.

All candidates go through a long vetting process of asking all current staff members for input, and then assembling all of their evaluations into a coherent unit.

We cannot just start to randomly promote people on a temporary basis without risking that they will severely mismanage their responsibilities.

In addition, we already have a very large staff, so it isn't necessary.
 
Understandable. Just wanted to make an idea that could possibly help out. If it isn't workable, completely fine with me.

You can close this thread now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Antvasima
I will be mostly absent for a while
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
O0DSF0o
Suggestion: Epilepsy Warning Template
Replies
2
Views
644
O0DSF0o
O0DSF0o
Dark_Soul20189
VS Battle is shutting down
Replies
10
Views
877
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Lloydblitzed
  • Locked
Big Verses and Minor CRTs: Let's do some Magic
Replies
25
Views
3K
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
The commoners thread: Discussing the Staff Threads concerning "Logic Manipulation" and the Changes to the Tiering System
Replies
18
Views
2K
FriendOfTheTeaParty
FriendOfTheTeaParty
Back
Top