Our staff hierarchy is inherently unequal, especially with regard to your original post only giving the power to authorize non-staff speaking rights to staff with evaluation rights. If admin is the average peak of the staff track for most staff members (excluding bureaucrats and super moderators), then you have the evaluation track, which is only discussion mods, and the technical track, which is everybody else (content/image/calc roles.) Below administrator, only one out of four of our staff groups would benefit from that suggestion.
I understand that the recent changes have brought about some concern regarding the inequality within the system. However, I would like to clarify that the discrepancies were a deliberate decision, and it is not a cause for alarm. I want to emphasize that the benefits will only be awarded to those who are qualified for their roles, ensuring that the system operates efficiently.
It is important to remember that selection for a particular job does not imply the ability to perform the same tasks as other team members. Each role has its own specialization, and team members are selected based on their expertise in specific areas. For instance, image helpers were chosen for their proficiency in image manipulation and creativity and specialize in evaluating images. Content moderators, on the other hand, are responsible for evaluating content within fandoms, and calculation members evaluate calculations. It is worth mentioning that CGM is the only role under the administrator with the right to evaluate calculations, and the other roles do not have this responsibility.
Moreover, ex-staff members have no obligation to the team since they have retired or demoted. Although their opinions and expertise are highly valued, they do not carry the same weight as current staff members with evaluation rights.
As such, their input may be taken into account but will not affect the decision-making process to the same degree.
To provide further clarification, the thread evaluations under this staff discussion will only benefit the relevant category. In other words, the benefits are tailored to suit each role's specific responsibilities, ensuring that each team member is recognized and rewarded for their expertise and contributions.
Assuming you don't mean "evaluation rights" as staff members of a certain category, but you mean all staff in general as a right of their roles to comment in the staff subforum, then you can't both welcome retired staff opinions while simultaneously restricting their ability to give evaluations. Those things are mutually exclusive.
That's incorrect. Let me clarify - I was referring specifically to staff members of a particular category, which has already been predetermined. In matter of fact, the former staff members and the "technical track" mentioned earlier in your post are not applicable to this particular category.
Historically, it has been commonplace for retired staff to continue to weigh in on staff threads, provided they meet the requirements such as the ones Planck and Crab posted. DontTalk being the biggest example. I'm pretty sure the unofficial role "consultant" was created for him, and Ultima had that role as well.
With all due respect, the two usernames that you have mentioned are still staff members irregardless of their history, and you can be one if you want to re-apply.
I simply don't see any logical reasoning for counting staff members that are no longer staff members to have exceptions, even if there is an unofficial history about it.
Not doubting their skills and expertise, but you simply can ask a staff member for permission if you want to share a professional opinion in a matter.
