It's that time again. Promotion time. We skipped the Q1 promotions this year to let the dust settle on the new system, and it's a good thing we did, but I'll not chat about that much here and now (more posts, later, always later). We have, as usual, a list of users going onto inactive statue, another list being removed from staff, and a final series of promotion votes.
This promotion vote will end in:
Operational Staff Inactivity Status:
These are members of staff whose presence has dropped significantly, either with or without an announcement. These members have been removed from their teams and placed on Inactive Status. Staff Members on Inactive Status have no rights as far as staff members go, but given a return to activity, can become staff again automatically.
| User | Status |
|---|---|
| Arlecchino (Burns) | Inactive |
| DrClef | Inactive |
| Drewbear | Inactive |
| Heiden | Inactive |
| MisterFlames | Inactive |
| Photosynthetic | Inactive |
| pig_catapult | Inactive |
| snorlison | Inactive |
| Vivax | Inactive |
Inactive Staff Removals:
While a list is maintained on the site, the following staff members have been deemed to have gone inactive/left for a long enough period of time that we are officially removing them from the staff roster. Should they return, their ability to be staff will have to be reassessed and considered before inclusion.
| User | Status |
|---|---|
| Riemann | Removed |
Operational Staff Voting:
This is an open vote for all staff members.
The following is a series of paragraphs and examples provided by Team Captains concerning their Junior Staff who are up for a vote. Please read the paragraphs, look over the examples, and see if their work is up to the quality standard we expect from all members of staff. If they are, please vote 'Yes' to this member for promotion. If they are not, please vote 'No', then explain your reasons, providing any examples which you wish to explain your reasoning.
| Junior Staff Member: Doctor Cimmerian, suggested by Decibelle and Vincent_Redgrave |
| Decibelle notes that: Doctor Cimmerian, like everyone on the team, has a sense on what makes an article work and not work beyond solid writing, concept, and execution. Cimmerian has looked at three drafts in his time on the time, but his critique and analysis on each has been invaluable to the authors. The one draft he's looked at that's stuck on the site is WrongJohnSilver's SCP-847. Also, unlike most rewriters, he's not only successfully rewritten an SCP (my own SCP-2290), but also a tale (Monophobia, rewritten from a translated tale from the French site, Je me hais). Vincent_Redgrave notes that: Cimmerian has done an immense amount of work for the licensing team, and if I'm not mistaken, he's basically been JS for as long as the position has existed. It's time for his contributions to be acknowledged and rewarded. Just for my team, he has attacked several hundred licensing violations, including some fifty-odd in one go, as well as regularly picking up the ball when other teammates, myself included, have dropped it. |
| Decibelle also notes that: Being on three other teams, all three of which carry major responsibilities and workloads at times, I am concerned he may not be able to split up the responsibilities evenly. Granted, the rewrite team does not have as active a job as the others, and it's relatively easy to set time aside when a rewrite comes up. But with projects I plan to bring to the team in the future, it may be difficult. I've had to learn this the hard way when I got on so many teams to help that I've had to drop some. Vincent_Redgrave also notes that: My only concern is that sometimes he takes way too much upon himself. He often is a tad headstrong and stubborn about accepting help or any sort of alleviation of his workload from us though. That is, unless it actively requires me or Procyonlotor to step in for a DMCA, or my stance of personally handling as many of the Big Three licensing violations (173, etc) as possible. |
| Junior Staff Member: Shaggydredlocks, suggested by Soulless |
| Soulless notes that: Shaggydredlocks is pretty active and available. He's pretty much available every day, both on chat and on site. He engages newbies well and is often patient with them. He's been on the staff team since June and hasn't really shown signs of burnout yet. |
| Soulless also notes that: In regards to his weaknesses, he's not always consistent with his availability, although he's here every day. Alternatively, I haven't seen him dive into difficult policy creation (not that there has been much jr staff have to get involved in) so I have no idea how he might handle it. |
| Junior Staff Member: Dr Solo, suggested by Soulless and Roget |
| Soulless notes that: Dr Solo has been a community member for a little around 8 years. He has a solid idea of what kind of policies he wants to take on and what he wants to do in the community, and a cleat direction of where he wants the site to go. Roget notes that: Solo has been effective on our facebook page, but he has only just begun to do regular work so it would be better to allow him to continue as JS for the moment. If you wish to consider him, he has so far been able to make relatively consistent and effective postings on social media and has good communication. I have no complaints about his work so far, I just think a larger body needs to be created to determine if he's effective in the long-term as a full staff member. |
| Soulless also notes that: He himself states he's not very good with conceptual critique, leans more on technical and is a stickler for sort-of-out-of-date site norms. He does have occasional activity issues and can't always put as much time as he likes into being staff here. |
| Candidate | YES | NO |
|---|---|---|
| YES | NO | |
| YES | NO | |
| YES | NO |
To Moderator:
This is a closed vote, only open to Moderators and Administrators.
| Candidate | YES | NO |
|---|---|---|
| YES | NO |
As usual, if you would 'neutral vote' someone, instead vote 'No.' Someone who you are ambivalent to should not receive your vote of confidence for staff. If you don't know who someone is, then I invite you to educate yourself and get to know their work before voting.
"WELL FOUNDATION. YOU MADE IT SO EASY. SO VERY VERY EASY." - dimensionpotato
(account deleted)