A_Random_Day: Not super active, but active enough, and been reliably around long-term. Generally has good advice, and a good writer, which is not mandatory for staff but definitely helps. Fairly high-quality critique. Solid.

ChrisAKAPiefish: Essentially inactive on the site and O5, but I'm fine promoting someone just for Internet Outreach work. Trusting Roget here.

dankaar: I don't really know dankaar, but looking at their recent posts, I see a record of solid, steady feedback going back months. That's plenty for me. Again, I'm fine with promoting someone just for doing one job well.

Dr Hysteria: Activity is meh. I have to disagree with people who complimented their critique. Most of their critique is a combination of useful technical critique (good), and feedback memes (not so good). Not the really awful feedback memes, but… when you primarily critique ideas by saying it's close to something we already have or that it's a generic magic item, your critique is not particularly good. You can say something similar about innumerable excellent pieces on the site.

This has been a recurring issue with low-quality critique on the site since at least 2011 (probably earlier) that staff have had to smack down repeatedly, and I'm a bit mystified here to see it cited as a compliment. (Guys, this is why we retired the cliche list.)

To be frank, I think Dr Hysteria has potential to be quite a good staff member, but is suffering from the "soft bigotry of low expectations." So it's a no from me. I'd rather see them improve themselves now and become staff later.

EldritchCyanide: An exceptionally impressive candidate. EC does a shit-ton of work in their assigned areas (I'm not even on Internet Outreach, and I still hear about the work they do). They care a lot about the community, which is a big thing for me. They are consistently active and helpful, which is especially impressive given the toxic experiences they've been forced to deal with. They are consistently friendly and cool and admirable. I certainly support them for staff.

That said, I do have a few areas of concern. As a preface: In the spirit of ProcyonLotor's full disclosure, it's weird for me to critique EC. I really like EC, and I also had an involuntary ringside seat to their worst experience on the site (even though this is totally unrelated to my concerns), and from the looks of things, I'm now going to be the only one to give them any critique at all. That is… uncomfortable, and makes me feel a little frustrated. But it's my job, so… here goes.

EC is typically very good at handling internal staff interactions. However, I've seen a concerning tendency for them to strongly support people who are being bad actors or promoting (IMO in some cases) bad policy, so long as it's someone they respect and like, to the point of expressing horror that someone might disagree. And when they do disagree with people they like, communication issues have cropped up, severely in at least some cases.

Discussion of policy, and attempting to understand others' perspectives, is a vital thing for staff members. Given their offsite activity level and helpfulness, I'm pretty certain EC's star will only rise — so I'd like to see them work on these things.

A few caveats:

• I've been less active for a while, and EC is mostly active on chat, where I haven't really been for a couple months. My impression may be skewed due to bad luck.
• I'm supporting a couple of people who I have never seen discuss policy, which is technically just as worrying.
• EC is hardly alone in this pattern. I've seen multiple truly excellent staff members fall into this trap from time to time (or fall into the reverse trap of being overly contrary after being called out on this).

However, I've seen at least one staff member in the past year who burned out like a falling star over just this issue. They were one of the best staff and coolest people I've ever had the pleasure to work with, and they're gone now. I don't want to see the same thing happen here, just because I was worried about some mild negative critique.

So… I hope EC finds this helpful, and forgives me, and I believe they will be an excellent staff member. :)

Jacob Conwell: I'm concerned about his lack of activity regarding policy discussions and such, making him a bit of a blank slate (I've learned to be paranoid about blank slates). However, reviewing his post history tells me he's a decent critiquer who's reliably around and active in the community, and generally a nice person as well as a good writer, so I'm going with yes.

Mistbourne: Fretted a bit about this one, not because they're bad, but because I felt ambivalent even after combing their recent posts. They're also mostly a blank slate for me. Their critique is okay — mostly technical corrections, which isn't bad, but nothing super high-quality or that would be helpful for a non-newbie. I'd see this as more positive if they were very active, but their activity level is just average. It's a big plus that they've been helpful to Zyn, but I kinda want to see either (A) more from them, or (B) a longer track record of Being Helpful To Zyn; they've been active on O5 for just over a month.

Ultimately… I would still vote yes just based on the fact that they've been around a while and seem helpful enough and likely to stick around, except for the fact that they're a blank slate to most of the rest of staff too. This makes me too ambivalent to choose… which means no.

MrWrong: Another 'blank slate', for me, who I feel ambivalent about, like Mistbourne. Unlike Mistbourne, they have a significantly above-average number of posts. Even if your critique is mostly technical corrections, that's still useful when you're doing it for a lot of people. And work is very valuable. Because of this alone, I almost voted Yes.

But… I'd rather see a higher level of critique demonstrated. Plus, there's Decibelles' concerns. I'd like to see more from MrWrong, and suspect they will become staff in good time if they don't right now, but I want to be sure.

Randomini: A strong, enthusiastic candidate with a valuable creative streak. Been less active on the site recently, in terms of posting comments, but as far as I can tell he's been just as involved in behind the scenes projects and plans to stick around, so supporting.

WrongJohnSilver: I don't know this person at all. However, as soon as I opened their recent posts, I immediately saw a bunch of really high-quality critique — the kind that goes beyond the technical and can help the writer seriously improve the bones of their piece. I also liked their technique of suggesting to writers many possible avenues they might take to improve their piece. High-quality critique is a central concern of mine, and I'm very impressed. Plus Decibelles' recommendation was extremely high. Certainly supporting them.

ProcyonLotor: I've been working with Procyon for years now, and watching him slowly evolve as a staff member. I've critiqued him before, quite strongly, in fact — and unlike some promising users who've taken critique as a personal offense, and in a number of cases even triggered a downward spiral, Procyon has done nothing but improve, even when he really didn't have to. For a while now, I've thought he reached the point where he will be an excellent moderator. There's a certain amount of irony that this comes just as he's had to take a break for personal reasons, but this has been a long time coming, and I'm completely confident in him.

• ARD: Good, steady crit, decent enough guy, no objections.
• ChrisAKAPiefish: Somehow I read their description three times throughout my writing up my votes without processing the fact that they were on Internet Outreach. I'll go with yes based on the recommendations of the team leader (and my general vague knowledge that the facebook page is going well), but I would really, really, really, like to see more site activity from them.
• Dankaar: Within the week of Dankaar first showing up, I remember saying to someone that I was pretty sure they'd be staff. While I'd prefer to see some more activity, and a presence (however marginal) on chat, their work is high quality and they should serve the site well.
• Dr Hysteria: I had some initial concerns about them wanting to be staff for the honor and glory of holding a mid-level position on a writing website, but checking into their crit, it's steady, and it's good. They've earned it.
• EldritchCyanide: Full disclosure, EC's been my mentee for a while now, since they were a wee site babby. However, I believe their work speaks for itself. They've been very active on Internet Outreach, and while I am fairly isolated from the operations of that team, everything I have heard has marked their work as excellent, and that which I have seen does not lead me to disagree. They're also immensely valuable as a friendly, calm voice in staffchat, and anyone who's been through those marathon policy discussions will tell you that that's a resource we cannot get too much of. I'd prefer to see more activity on site, but it has not reached the point where it effects my vote. I constantly have to be reminded that they are not, in fact, already operational staff.
• Conwell: Conwell is, like EC above, a friendly, calm, reasonable voice. He's been a great contributor to the site over a long while and I fully expect him to perform well on staff.
• Mistbourne: My vote is hesitant, due to the fact that my interactions with this user have been virtually non-existent. However, the quality of the critique they give and Zyn's recommendation as team leader are enough to put me in the yes camp.
• MrWrong: Good crit, and lots of it, and a pleasant user. No objections.
• Randomini: Randomini has been a great asset to the site in terms of both writing and the technical end. We need all the tech folks we can get, and to have one who's contributed as much to our site as Randomini has, it's an obvious shoo-in.
• WrongJohnSilver: My tendency to confuse them with MrWrong is infuriating, but not valid grounds for a no vote. I probably sound like a broken record, but good guy, quality crit at a steady pace, happy to give a chance on staff.

A Random Day: Yes. I've seen him around and seen him critiquing both in chat and on forums consistently to feel confident in him being staff.

ChrisAKAPiefish: Yes. He doesn't come on IRC or the site much, but he's fully capable when running the Facebook page and knows how to handle it. That being said, I would like to see him on IRC even a bit more. However, if he continues to do well with IO stuff, that's not a huge issue (we already have a few members of IO who's presence is very largely confined to the outreach, which is fine by me).

dankaar: Yes. Not too active, but active enough to be solid and reliable, and I'd like to see that continue in the future.

Dr Hysteria: No. I'm ambivalent, so by default, that means a no. I think here it's a combination of site activity and post content. I don't think he's not knowledgeable about what he does, but the prosperity to point out stuff similar to what already exists doesn't strike me as an overall net benefit. My issue is more that I wanna see more out of him and a bit more consistency in the critique. Not unfitting, but not confident for a yes.

EldritchCyanide: Yes. They are very good at handling the tumblr and twitter. Same comment applies here as Piefish, except I'd like to see them on site a bit more.

Jacob Conwell: Yes. Nice solid critique and is helpful with it. There is a bit of a concern if he doesn't really talk with the captain about certain issues (I don't know how Soulless handles that, so I can't say much beyond what he's mentioned). Hopefully that's more him being a bit shy and that he can come out of that shell when being OS.

Mistbourne: Yes. Nothing much to say here aside from my comments on dankaar too.

MrWrong: No. A very tentative no. He's active and good at contributing, but seems to be a bit authoritative at times in posting or a bit ready to come down on someone¹ for simple inquiring or goofiness or whatnot. Unfortunately, this is really the full extent to what I remember from his posting in a staff capacity more than anything else. Like Hysteria, I don't doubt his abilities or eye for good critique, but it's not convincing for me.

Randomini: Yes. As I've stated above, I absolutely believe Randomini is a good fit for staff and actually wants to do it. There are only two things that worry me; his inactivity due to school stuff (his inactivity isn't that bad regardless), and the fact that his true prowess hasn't been accurately displayed by being on Technical Team. Understand; I think he's good for Community Outreach and has shown as such. But he would be much more at home with Technical, and I gave him the position on CO to see if he was a good fit for staff in general (which he is).

WrongJohnSilver: Yes. He's very capable on Rewrite, and I fully trust him to the extent where he's interim captain if anything happens to me such as extended breaks.

ProcyonLotor: Yes. Aside from his recent absence, he's one of the more active people on chat, and is definitely able to step up to the plate on site when needed. One concern, more of a sidenote: if there's a bit of a hivemind or echo chamber in terms of staff opinions or thoughts, I notice how he tends to be part of that more often than not. This is not inherently a bad thing, and he's been able to explain his opinions pretty strongly and readily. I'm more surprised that he hadn't been made mod before I.