EDIT: And for more clarity and greater consistency, added the following:

For purposes of consistency, captains are discouraged from deviating from this document unless an explicit reason is provided and listed in their specific structure pages.

There is more than the sole exception. From what I understand, Liscensing and soon-to-be Images team also hold the notion that promotion is not a guarantee, and should be suggested only when the Captain feels a junior is ready. Cimmerian for example, I believe, had over a year to wait before being put up for promotion.

A member of Junior Staff should consult with their team captain first and, if the captain's word disagrees with this document, to take their captain's word.

I believe with a degree of conviction that this is a terrible way to treat the position of junior staff. Every other position in the staff structure has clearly defined responsibilities, applicable regardless of which team, if any, they are part of. It's a mistake to treat junior staff as the odd role out, with privileges and responsibilities solely at will of the their team's captain. This is a great way to foster confusion about what they can and cannot, or should and should not do. They will obviously do different tasks on different teams, but there should still be universal expectations and limitations for junior staff as a whole, applicable regardless of which team they're on. Rules and policies that can be ignored and discarded at will are neither.

I further disagree with the assertion that there are or should be two different types of junior staff. The role, at its inception, was very clearly outlined to be a trial: to see if someone could handle the most basic of tasks and assess if they were worth consideration for promotion to full staff. We are not so short-staffed that we need to have junior staff performing tasks which would otherwise be the purview of operational staff and above. I'm not really aware of any discussion taking place regarding whether or not the purpose of the role should be modified or expanded - this would be a pretty significant change of policy, and probably ought to be handled as such, unless I'm waaay off base here. As far as I can tell, people just started saying, "This is also what junior staff is for," or "This is what I use my junior staff for," disregarding the original intent. The sole exception here, as mentioned above, being Wikiwalk, which functions differently enough from all the other teams, and is uniquely intended to be temporary, that bending our definitions of what junior staff is to accommodate Wikiwalk seems silly. Treating the "helpers" attached to Wikiwalk as junior staff only muddles our definitions of what junior staff is. We're trying to jam a square peg through a round hole by doing so.

I'll come back and say the rest of my bit on the subject tomorrow. It's late.

Junior Staff are not given any authority over other users unless that particular action has been okayed by a mod or their team captain (who should be mod or higher). We don't need users bickering among each other because one helps staff and another is clueless. The part at the end regarding this (point 3 of 4 in the last section) does clearly enough state that, but I would prefer if it was more explicit in What Junior Staff Cannot Do.

Something like…

Junior Staff as Disciplinary Deputies
Junior Staff may not create disciplinary posts on 05command or call out posts on members unless explicitly asked to or okayed by their team captain or a higher Staff member.

Unless the redundancy between this bit and the part of the last section would be redundant in a bad way. I'm not 100% certain how I feel right this moment, but I'll come back tomorrow before the deadline is up to clarify and adjust this as I can.

OVERALL though, I really do like the simplicity of this and think it covers the major stuff. It can be added to if something New pops up, but as it is it's pretty good.

Moved to a different section, probably?

Do you know which section would be most suitable?

Also, is there a reason JS can't make any closed posts? I'm okay with them not getting stop orders until they're promoted, but if they're just making maintenance posts that don't need replies to, I'm okay with that to keep the forums in order.

Is there a difference between closed posts and a stop order, in that a closed post is a stop order to responding to that post? I don't mind removing that if no one has issues with it.

Which teams? I think wikiwalk would be helper only, but I'm not sure which others?

From what I understand it would be wikiwalk, also licensing and images team(s?), and also potentially the proposed maintenance team Dexanote is still working on.

How many teams is this the case for? It seems misleading to say that JS can n promoted if there's several teams that only take on members on a helper basis.

Should I emphasize 'though not necessarily'? Should it be bolded?

Which things in particular can JS vote on?

Not sure if it's specifically a "vote" per se, but I'm good with my JS giving their opinion in favor/against new actions proposed in the mainsite staff tasks discussions and the like.

Furthermore, this was stated earlier in the beginning of the document. Does this information need to be repeated?

Moved to a different section, probably?

Certain teams do not see their junior staff as trial staff in any way, merely helpers, and this creates a different dynamic within their teams.

Which teams? I think wikiwalk would be helper only, but I'm not sure which others?

This is to specify they can be promoted, although not necessarily.

How many teams is this the case for? It seems misleading to say that JS can n promoted if there's several teams that only take on members on a helper basis.

Could you let me know where it is unclear?

As noted above, the closed posts and voting. I feel like for people who are somewhat new to start structure, those parts may not be straightforward. Also, is there a reason JS can't make any closed posts? I'm okay with them not getting stop orders until they're promoted, but if they're just making maintenance posts that don't need replies to, I'm okay with that to keep the forums in order.

Maybe note here that JS can vote on things that their captains have cleared?

Which things in particular can JS vote on? Furthermore, this was stated earlier in the beginning of the document. Does this information need to be repeated?

I'm most familiar with Forum Crit, but I see both of those as essential to JS.

Certain teams do not see their junior staff as trial staff in any way, merely helpers, and this creates a different dynamic within their teams.

Although I'm not sure if the promotion thing really warrants its own bullet there since it's not something JS really "do".

This is to specify they can be promoted, although not necessarily. See above that certain teams do not see their junior staff as something to promote with much ease.

It feels a little bare-bones and a little vague.

Could you let me know where it is unclear?

As in, rule-breaking or repeated refusal to change behavior that's been addressed?

I'll edit the guide to specify that it applies to rule-breaking behavior.

This seems like a useful guide, I don't think it goes far enough though. I think having an outline like this for all levels of staff would be more complete and useful. I know a lot of people in the last promotion cycle reported feeling a little confused and alienated because there weren't really clear instructions on what had changed for them and what they could do next.

Beyond that, the Guide seems reasonable to my eyes.

I'm not too sure about the "The purpose of the Junior Staff position" bit.

• Is there a reason that there's two sections? Do we have many JS who are solely "helper staff" or solely "trial staff"? Granted, I'm most familiar with Forum Crit, but I see both of those as essential to JS.
• The "Junior Staff positions are something like [x staff]" sentences can probably be removed.

The "What Junior Staff can do" section is a little confusing.

• Maybe have the categories be "Make Junior Staff posts", "Access 05command", and "Be candidates for promotion". Although I'm not sure if the promotion thing really warrants its own bullet there since it's not something JS really "do".
• It feels a little bare-bones and a little vague.
  • "Junior staff posts cannot be closed." > could be "JS cannot call for stops to conversations" or the like.
• Maybe note here that JS can vote on things that their captains have cleared?

The What Junior Staff cannot do section can probably be trimmed down.

• Maybe just a bullet list?
• JS cannot start or vote on deletion votes.
• JS cannot participate in policy or disciplinary ban votes on 05.
• etc.

"The cultural expectations of the Junior Staff position." can be rearranged a bit in order of relevance.

• I would put "Sensitivity to community" second, and "Calling out inappropriate user behavior" third.
• The "Calling out inappropriate user behavior" might need some more info. I don't think JS calling out someone for necroposting once merits an O5 thread, or really requires oversight from a staff member since this is the kind of thing that regular users are okay doing.
  • Granted, repeated outright rulebreaking is different from forum faux pas-ing, and there are some times when staff should step in if a non-staff user is being overauthoritative. In general though, O5 threads shouldn't be made for singular small instances, even if someone's being told to change their behavior.
  • Perhaps specify the kind of "inappropriate behavior"? As in, rule-breaking or repeated refusal to change behavior that's been addressed?

I'm admittedly kind of sleepy now so parts of this might not make sense

The guide can be found here:

(Link deleted for the reuse of other projects)

I'm giving everyone 2 weeks to look it over, suggest changes, or discuss issues. This can be extended if there comes a relatively long discussion about something that clearly needs more time to hammer this out. Otherwise, this will be closed after 2 weeks and then will become the official guide, posted on 05command.