[DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

Summary:

Those in stone houses shouldn't throw glass or whatever

[DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

torcsandantlers 20 Apr 2023 00:31

Mainsite Mirror

Proposal:

• We archive the Promotion Procedure page. I know that it's largely a guide for staff use and so as the Captain of the team that uses it I could probably just archive it on my own. However, it does have some policy implications, so I'd be happier if we did it as a staff body.
• We update the Promotions Policy to this version: Updated Promotions Policy. This has a few substantive changes as well as some tweaks in formatting and wording.

Notable Changes to the Promotions Policy:

• Nominees would need to be posted on the Staff Site and Mainsite in order to allow for comments on nominees. This would allow any opposition to or support for nominees to be voiced prior to voting so that the community can have a voice in the process. It will also allow all voters to make a potentially more informed decision.
• Promotions to Administrator would now be officially tied to the promotion cycle. In practice they have been, but the previous policy calls it out in such a way that they shouldn't have been happening at the same time. If Administrators feel that they need a mid-cycle promotion this section remains: "Upon staff consensus, promotions may occur outside of this cycle."
• The week in which the promotion voting period occurs has been changed from a general "Second Week of February" format to a clearer "Second Full Week of February" format. This is what I've been doing anyway, but it is technically a change. This section also now only lists the week in which voting occurs since the previous format could lead to variable schedules depending on how "last" and "second" were interpreted.
• The promotion cycle would be one week longer to allow for commentary on nominees.
• Added a "Mandatory events in each promotion cycle are:" section.
• Added a "Promotions Schedule Table" to clearly document which dates events will happen on.

---

Please provide any comments or criticism.

This discussion will be open for one week at which time we will determine whether it needs more time, a fresh discussion thread, or if it is ready to move onto a vote.

Last edited on 20 Apr 2023 00:32 by torcsandantlers Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

DrBleep 20 Apr 2023 00:45

Promotions to Administrator would now be officially tied to the promotion cycle. In practice they have been, but the previous policy calls it out in such a way that they shouldn't have been happening at the same time. If Administrators feel that they need a mid-cycle promotion this section remains: "Upon staff consensus, promotions may occur outside of this cycle."

While I'm fine with tieing Admin promotions to the promotion cycle, I'm not fine shackling it to occurring to a whole staff decision. Admin promos should be able to happen at Administrator discretion outside of the normal cycle in the event of emergencies as a safeguard against an emergency situation where the number of admins is dangerously low. Shackling it to a whole staff vote could create serious problems on a logistical level and lead to a spiral of burnout and deficit in normal admin functions. It's just best not to risk it and leave initiation up to Administrator discretion.

Nominees would need to be posted on the Staff Site and Mainsite in order to allow for comments on nominees. This would allow any opposition to or support for nominees to be voiced prior to voting so that the community can have a voice in the process. It will also allow all voters to make a potentially more informed decision.

Generally in favor of this but I think we'll need to put in safeguards to ensure that people keep the criticism on candidates objective.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

torcsandantlers 20 Apr 2023 01:00

Shackling it to a whole staff vote could create serious problems on a logistical level and lead to a spiral of burnout and deficit in normal admin functions. It's just best not to risk it and leave initiation up to Administrator discretion.

I'd be okay with rewording "Upon staff consensus, promotions may occur outside of this cycle." to "Upon staff consensus or upon Administrator consensus, promotions may occur outside of this cycle." Since Admins could fiat their way around it anyway.

EDIT: I've made this change to the updated policy.

Last edited on 20 Apr 2023 01:02 by torcsandantlers Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

DrBleep 20 Apr 2023 01:02

I'm fine with that rewording and it fixes the issue I had.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

aismallard 25 Apr 2023 04:37

I'm not too clear on why staff consensus makes sense for admin promotions. I feel like changing it from "staff consensus" to simply "admin consensus" makes more sense, and I'm not sure when there would be staff consensus but not admin consensus for a promotion round.

As a general comment, I agree with Bleep that it makes sense to usually stick to the typical schedule but it should be possible to hold promotions at any time if needed, due to the much rarer and more deliberate nature of admin promotions.

Edit: Oh I think I see, either staff or admins can prompt to hold any promotions outside of cycle, not just admin ones. The "x or y" wording is fine then.

Last edited on 25 Apr 2023 04:39 by aismallard Show more

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

torcsandantlers 27 Apr 2023 12:40

This discussion is closed and has moved to a vote here: https://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-15833313/voting-promotions-reform-increased-transparency-and-tweaks

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

Prime Girl 20 Apr 2023 01:09

Echoing Bleep's concerns.

Admin promos currently really only happen during regular promos, but I think it's good to always have the option to do Admin promos as needed, for similar reasons that I think it's good to allow OS to obtain Mod Tools as needed even though nobody has taken advantage of that since the passing of the Mod Tools proposal.

I do like the idea of having more community feedback on promos. Very much like where your head is at with that. However, I think we're going to definitely make clear expectations re:civility from both the community and from staffers.

If the community is allowed to comment on promos, and I do think they should be, then they're going to comment on people, they may say negative things about those people, about their conduct, about their personality, about why they might be unsuitable for the position, or even staff as a whole.

Where's the line that denotes where this is appropriate and when this is just mudslinging? How does it then look if we have to crack down on people's negative feedback about staff members when they were invited to give it?

And from the staff side, if one's character is called into question, if one is accused of something, one will likely want to do a rebuttal, it seems only natural. Would that be allowed? It would seem unfair not to allow it, but then this can easily become an unproductive slapfight.

Basically i think think a fair amount of rules/guidelines/expectations may need to be put into place for comments on promotions by users to go off without a hitch. But I think it's definitely worth doing!

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

torcsandantlers 20 Apr 2023 15:51

These are good concerns.

+ Some responses and ramblings

Where's the line that denotes where this is appropriate and when this is just mudslinging?

The honest answer here is that we're not going to be able to make a rule on the discussion thread that accurately draws that line; we're going to have to settle for one of two things: trusting users to abide by general site decorum or providing some general decorum rules.

I think giving some decorum rules can work, but it can also provide an opportunity for those commenting in bad-faith to say "But I technically didn't break that rule."

How does it then look if we have to crack down on people's negative feedback about staff members when they were invited to give it?

This would depend entirely on how we handle it. We'd need to identify four levels of negative feedback. One, legitimate, civil feedback; this we wouldn't need to take any action on.
Two, legitimate but uncivil feedback; this would require a staff-post reminding them to remain civil.
Three, unproductively negative feedback; this would require a staff-post stopping that thread of conversation.
Four, extreme rule-breaking feedback; this would require us to edit the message to remove its content.
I think that as long as we're consistent in our application of this method anyone engaging in good faith will see that. But there will always be those who won't accept this, because they aren't starting from a point of good faith. Regardless of our actions, they'll be upset, but they were already upset.

And from the staff side, if one's character is called into question, if one is accused of something, one will likely want to do a rebuttal, it seems only natural. Would that be allowed?

Definitely! Staff acknowledging and responding to community criticism is half of the point. Obviously if a staff member thinks that it's not worth responding to, then they don't have to. This also serves as an opportunity to see how that staff member works under the pressure of criticism.

It would seem unfair not to allow it, but then this can easily become an unproductive slapfight.

Yes, it definitely could, so let's also hold responses to the same four criteria before.

I do think having rules for the thread is a good idea. I know that you haven't suggested this, but I don't think the rules belong anywhere in the policy. We should allow the rules for the discussion to be changed with each iteration to match site culture and adapt to the outcomes of previous discussion. My proposed rules below.

+ Proposed Rules:

Rules

This thread exists to allow commentary and criticism on candidates as candidates. All comments should be addressing one of the following:

• Concern or support for a candidate's ability to perform their duties after promotion
• Concern or support for a candidate's character only in so far as it will affect their ability to perform their duties or their standing as staff

What is not allowed in this thread:

• General complaints that you don't like a candidate for reasons that would not effect their ability to perform their duties.
• Comments that contain neither concern nor support for any candidate. A totally neutral stance does not need commented.
• Vehemence, rudeness, and incivility. While this is a place to post concerns, it is not a place to attack candidates.

Replies to comments are allowed but not required. Any user may respond to any concerns or support, including the candidate in question. All of the same rules apply to replies.

Staff will be monitoring this thread and will issue orders to stop discussion only if they have passed into unproductive vehemence. Staff will remove any comments that are extremely rule-breaking.

Note: consider this my response to cdithink and EmotionalEntropy as well.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

Prime Girl 20 Apr 2023 18:27

Largely I think those rules would cover it. Might be worth adding a clause that if users have very serious concerns about staff members that it may be appropriate/more appropriate for them to contact a member of Disc or AHT if they so choose.

I'd also potentially have concerns re: jumping the gun on stop orders / responding to a comment when it should be stopordered instead but I trust staff to be civil/think things through enough that this hopefully won't be an issue

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

torcsandantlers 20 Apr 2023 18:34

I've thought about the more serious concerns, and if the public thread is the impetus for them speaking out I don't really know if I want to limit it. Worst case is that it's a message that oversteps, we step in to stop order and pass it along to the team.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

Prime Girl 21 Apr 2023 05:25

Yeah that's fair

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

aismallard 25 Apr 2023 04:43

Noting that I agree that mod tools should not be tied to the promotions cycle necessarily. For one, these are not promotions, and two, somebody stepping into a role requiring such access can occur at any time.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

torcsandantlers 25 Apr 2023 14:03

Mod tool acquisition would remain the same as Cass designed them. The relevant section:

At any time, acting Team Captains may put forth one or more of their team members of Operational Staff rank or higher as candidates for the role. Admins may at any time put forth one or more candidates for the role for the purpose of aiding in staff duties requiring the role.

The only portion really tied into the promotion cycle is the Renewal.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

cdithink 20 Apr 2023 02:01

Adding to what's been said, I think we should make it clearer what we're looking for in comments about nominees. General character insults aren't super productive and if it's a bad enough personal issue, it should be taken up with AHT. We may want to clarify or provide guidelines so we aren't just getting out of hand insults without a potential for rebuttal. We all know how grossly optimistic it is to assume people are always going to be civil online.

---

— CD

Re: [DISCUSSION] Promotions Reform - Increased Transparency and Tweaks

EmotionalEntropy 20 Apr 2023 06:32

Nominees would need to be posted on the Staff Site and Mainsite in order to allow for comments on nominees. This would allow any opposition to or support for nominees to be voiced prior to voting so that the community can have a voice in the process. It will also allow all voters to make a potentially more informed decision.

Echoing cdithink, I think upon opening the promo commentary from Mainsite for nominees there should be a clear guideline of what comments are being looked for in order to ensure not just insult and people not taking it seriously, but also to prevent biases and targeting that could potentially occur. As long as you have a guideline and potentially a simple template for people to follow, I am all for the addition of hearing the Mainsite voices.
You will want to make sure that the comments are watched carefully and how replying to comments would even be addressed, as even in the midst of it if someone were to make exaggerations or baseless accusations based upon a grudge then it should be something to keep in mind as it may impact people's choices.

Other than that I think this is very good, and I also very much appreciate there being a schedule table.