Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2020-01-26, 16:12 WE ARE RECRUITING
Sign in to follow this  
APositiveElmo

Staff Disclosure

Recommended Posts

Okay, I'll try and keep this short. Whilst viewing appeals and reports, it struck me that there's always a separate staff team working on the reports and the appeals of said reports. This was not news to me. However, after browsing through the forums and consulting with staff, I discovered that there is no sign of staff disclosing who worked on a particular report.

For example, let's say a team of 3 GMs, Dusty, Castiel and MapleMoose (This is in no way singling any of you out or putting you on blast, I just love you all <3) works on a particular report for BadRP and KoS. Now let's say Dusty pulls the logs and calls in PoVs and Castiel writes the verdict for the report, leaving them as the only two who posted in the report. Maple made her contribution through discussing the report with the other two and making her PoV known in the discussions, but never actually posted in the report. How are we to know that Maple actually worked on the report?

Now onto the meat of my suggestion, what I'm suggesting is a thread or even a template in the verdict where all of the GMs, admins etc who worked on the report and wrote the verdicts, pulled logs etc are disclosed on this particular thread. Essentially, it would be a template or thread in which they would post who contributed to the report from the GM team or the administrator team.

Example: 

Supervising GMs: Dusty, Castiel, Maplemooses

Now, even though Maple did not directly contribute to the report on the forums, her contributions to the report are still known and acknowledged through the disclosure of her working on the report. I feel as if this would alleviate a lot of the flak on certain GMs for not being active enough on the forums, as they would be shown to have contributed to a report in the final verdict.

For clarification, this in no way reflects any of my opinions on the GMs, I simply picked three of them and allotted them roles at random, their roles in this scenario in no way reflect my opinions on their actual contributions to the staff team. 

I would very much appreciate the mind of the community on this one, as well as the mind of the staff team. Please try to keep it civil people, this is not a thread to shit on staff you think are inactive.

Edited by Elmo

Share this post


Link to post

I dont think I understand what you mean. The people who worked on a Report to solve it, are listed on the the so called "Thread notes" - which are only visible to Staff (Mods to Admins) - thats how we know who discussed the verdict.

Thread Notes: In Thread notes we post our opinion and do notes. A report is never solved by using the thread notes. It alway is done in TS or via Slack. The ones who did the discussion "sign" the verdict by putting their names into the thread notes after it was solved.

 

Share this post


Link to post

So basically you want to give more tools to the members who single out staff and shit on them for apparently not contributing enough to the work load? I don't see why this should happen, and I don't understand the entitlement some people have over staff transparency. Until we can buy shares in DayZRP, no one needs to know or have a say about how much each staff member needs to put in. That's for staff and above to work out and no one else's business.

Share this post


Link to post

What I'm asking for is a simple list at the end of the verdict of which GMs participated actively in the report. I don't care about opinions, I just want to know who and how many are working on my report.

3 minutes ago, SomeWeirdAssGuy said:

So basically you want to give more tools to the members who single out staff and shit on them for apparently not contributing enough to the work load? I don't see why this should happen, and I don't understand the entitlement some people have over staff transparency. Until we can buy shares in DayZRP, no one needs to know or have a say about how much each staff member needs to put in. That's for staff and above to work out and no one else's business.

You're misquoting me. All I am asking for is a list of who contributed actively to the report e.g. the GM team that actually wrote the verdict. I in no way encourage the singling out of staff and the mistreating of them for their punishments and opinions.

As for my sense of entitlement, I am asking, I am not demanding. I am seeing what the community thinks. Behave yourself, act civil and read the post. 

Edited by Elmo

Share this post


Link to post

I know this was posted in Ask the Admins (here) some time ago and I answered it, when it was asked why we didn't do that. I believe it was discussed in the past when I was still as an admin and it basically came to the point to where, like Terra said, it's all handled in thread notes so staff themselves can run their "checks and balances".

Additionally, if someone were to see X signed a few verdicts against a particular group, they'd be more prone to whine and claim bias. Who works on a report shouldn't honestly matter. If people believe bias played a part in it, then the admins would handle it. It's been done before where people have claimed bias, and we looked into it to find nothing because a baseless accusation.

Share this post


Link to post

This is not the first time people suggested this. We have decided against it for the following reason (which is also debateable for some):

Lets say I discuss 5 verdicts a day, I write maybe 2. A week later, a person which I was involved in the last time he got reported and banned, gets reported again and I am again involved in the outcome. People will claim biasness all over the place.

We need to be able to work on every case (If we are not directly involved, same group etc.) We would need much more Staff otherwise everyone will claim biasdness and that "I dont like the person" - And what Tosh said ^. He explained it better

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see how this suggestion, if implemented, would further benefit the process of reports and appeals. The information is already logged in each report/appeal thread notes.

Having this information public wouldn't help the staff team do a better job, IMO. Would it be interesting for the general population of the community? Sure, although sometimes I wonder if we take too much of an interest in these kind of details. :)

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Tosh said:

I know this was posted in Ask the Admins (here) some time ago and I answered it, when it was asked why we didn't do that. I believe it was discussed in the past when I was still as an admin and it basically came to the point to where, like Terra said, it's all handled in thread notes so staff themselves can run their "checks and balances".

Additionally, if someone were to see X signed a few verdicts against a particular group, they'd be more prone to whine and claim bias. Who works on a report shouldn't honestly matter. If people believe bias played a part in it, then the admins would handle it. It's been done before where people have claimed bias, and we looked into it to find nothing because a baseless accusation.

My concern is not that my appeal would be worked on by the same person who punished me, it is the visible contribution of staff members that goes unacknowledged. If I only see two GMs posting, but 3 were involved, should the third not be credited/listed as contributing to the report? It would certainly somewhat void the need for the "behind the scenes" reasoning, as we can see who worked on what. This is not meant as a community monitoring scheme, just as a visible way of assigning credit where credit is due.

As for the bias, people always claim bias, I've had it claimed in reports I've made, I've claimed it in anger at some points. The "staff are biased" line will always be there, unless there is substantial proof of staff bias then people can claim what they want, it won't really matter.

3 minutes ago, Terra said:

This is not the first time people suggested this. We have decided against it for the following reason (which is also debateable for some):

Lets say I discuss 5 verdicts a day, I write maybe 2. A week later, a person which I was involved in the last time he got reported and banned, gets reported again and I am again involved in the outcome. People will claim biasness all over the place.

We need to be able to work on every case (If we are not directly involved, same group etc.) We would need much more Staff otherwise everyone will claim biasdness and that "I dont like the person" - And what Tosh said ^. He explained it better

In the eyes of some, you would be a hard worker mowing down reports like bad guys in an action film, to others you'll be the biased administrator punishing them for their rulebreaks. People claim bias already, when their friends are punished, when they are punished, disclosing the names of staff who worked on the report would not change that.

I appreciate both of you replying swiftly and with good feedback, thank you.

2 minutes ago, Plank said:

I don't see how this suggestion, if implemented, would further benefit the process of reports and appeals. The information is already logged in each report/appeal thread notes.

Having this information public wouldn't help the staff team do a better job, IMO. Would it be interesting for the general population of the community? Sure, although sometimes I wonder if we take too much of an interest in these kind of details. :)

As I said, give credit where credit is due. You contribute, you get your name posted.

Share this post


Link to post

Be realisitic...People would appeal saying "Terra does not like me. She banned me 3 times in a row..." - "Staff hates me" and so on. Personally, I am against it, as much as I would like that the community could see who is active and who is not. But the community is also not stupid, they see who does work and they see who is in TS and so on. Again, that is my personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

My point wasn't that there'd be a few people commending you for eating those reports, it was moreso to do with the fact that people have opinions, they'll have them regardless of what you do, they'll claim bias if you punish them, they'll commend you for closing their filed KoS report with a 7 day ban for the accused. Its all about what suits people, I just think this might suit staff as it shows activity that might not otherwise be visible.

 

Share this post


Link to post

The activity is visible to the people that it concerns which are the Admins. A lot of activity happens behind the scenes and being in staff isn't/shouldn't be about getting a pat on the back for everything you do. This would simply cause more forum drama then we already have and it's not a feature that is really needed. 

Share this post


Link to post

The community can sit here and complain all they want about inactivity and such, and though some of it could be warranted the only ones who need to know are the admins.  They will truly know whether someone is inactive or not and that is really all that matters.  A lot of people here claim certain GM's are inactive and typically when they are wrong it's because that GM is doing a lot of things behind the scenes.  The only way someone will truly understand that is by being in staff itself.  I know I used to look at people and be like, "Wow, they are inactive as fuck."  Then I became a staff member and saw it the other way.

Case and point - the only people that really need to monitor inactivity is the admins.  The community can claim inactivity all they want but the people who truly need to know will know.  Perhaps people can stop putting "inactive" GM's on blast for something they aren't entirely sure on.

Edited by Cid

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Clumsy said:

The activity is visible to the people that it concerns which are the Admins. A lot of activity happens behind the scenes and being in staff isn't/shouldn't be about getting a pat on the back for everything you do. This would simply cause more forum drama then we already have and it's not a feature that is really needed. 

Are you suggesting that the community shouldn't be concerned with the level of staff activity?

2 minutes ago, Cid said:

  A lot of people here claim certain GM's are inactive and typically when they are wrong it's because that GM is doing a lot of things behind the scenes.  The only way someone will truly understand that is by being in staff itself.

What I'm suggesting would, at the very least, show that GMs who are doing work behind the scenes are showing their work to the community. I feel it would benefit GMs because it would suppress some of the flak they receive about behind the scenes work or flat out accusations of lethargic work practice.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Elmo said:

Are you suggesting that the community shouldn't be concerned with the level of staff activity?

The community just needs to understand that a lot happens behind closed doors. I know they don't like to hear it, but it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Elmo said:

Are you suggesting that the community shouldn't be concerned with the level of staff activity?

I'm stating that it shouldn't be this big of a deal to the community as it is. If someone in staff isn't pulling their weight then they will be removed by the admins or some of them will take the choice to step down. It is not up to the community to monitor everything the staff team is doing. I stepped down for that very reason as I couldn't sit in the help desk as much as others Support members and could only do forum work due to bed rest. It looked like, to the community, that I wasn't doing anything yet behind the scenes I was involved in discussions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, MapleMooses said:

The community just needs to understand that a lot happens behind closed doors. I know they don't like to hear it, but it's true.

I, for one, don't understand why it has to happen behind closed doors. If there's a good reason for it, I'd like to hear it.

Edit:

Just so we're clear, I'm not looking for an argument, just seeking clarification.

Edited by Elmo

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Elmo said:

I, for one, don't understand why it has to happen behind closed doors. If there's a good reason for it, I'd like to hear it.

Well, discussing reports always happens with a group of staff - we can't exactly show you our discussions publically. Same with reported posts, and ban appeals. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, MapleMooses said:

Well, discussing reports always happens with a group of staff - we can't exactly show you our discussions publically. Same with reported posts, and ban appeals. 

I never asked for a disclosure of your discussions, your opinions are your own, share them at your own discretion. What I'm asking for are the names of the GMs who were involved in a verdict. How difficult is that to list?

Share this post


Link to post

The issue is in my experience (its been a while)  A lot of reports get comments from a lot if not almost all the Mods+ as they generally all look at thread notes and contribute their notes if what they think  isn't already written.  I'm guessing if your suggestion happened and they really included all who discussed it at all, every report would list almost all of staff.

Share this post


Link to post

The community doesn't need to know every little detail of everything staff does, it's just unnecessary. 

I understand where you're coming from, but I feel like this would create more issues and give people more tools to make baseless accusations on staff members and we don't need anymore of that. 

Edited by Lazer

Share this post


Link to post

As much as I would love to see this, as a lot of people mentioned before, some people are going to flame about staff hate and bias. I'd personally love to see this, because I believe that a lot of thought and discussion goes into every report from the staff team, and I would never believe that any verdict is due to an unjust reason. However, some people make mistakes, either intentionally or unintentionally, and will look for every possibility to get around a verdict against them. If they get to see who worked on their report, they can probably start all sorts of hate against staff. That's not what we need. Staff is doing an amazing job at the moment, this is after all a huge community (creds to them), and directing hate their way would probably be very discouraging, and with the already ongoing controversy about staff from some members, this would probably escalate things even further.

TL;DR: I'd love to see it, but it would never work.

Edited by Dingle

Share this post


Link to post

I don't really see how this would have any positive effect. If I was to report someone I don't really mind who solves the report as long as it gets solved

1 hour ago, Terra said:

People would appeal saying "Terra does not like me. She banned me 3 times in a row..."

I also feel like this would pop up more and more. All we really need to know is that the staff team are working on the reports and putting work into them. I couldn't care less if @Castiel and @MapleMooses worked on my report compared to someone like @Terra and @Jamie

Share this post


Link to post

If you don't like a verdict make a thread about it and you can ask who signed it. Staff has done this forever don't see a reason to change it.   

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Rampage said:

If you don't like a verdict make a thread about it and you can ask who signed it. Staff has done this forever don't see a reason to change it.   

Its not so much about disliking verdicts as having it there in case someone dislikes a verdict, so staff have their name on their work etc. 

Share this post


Link to post

I understand Elmo's suggestion this way: He wanted to suggest a way to show the acitivity from Staff and it's members.

I understand it, that it is not about calling out Staff members if someone does not like the verdict. As I said, above: I am against it, as much as I would like that the community could see who is active and who is not. But the community is also not stupid, they see who does work and they see who is in TS and so on. Again, that is my personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...