The Moderator Submission Rules Have Been Updated. Again.

We did it @Forest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04854XqcfCY

We did it @Forest

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04854XqcfCY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M

aight

While I understand why the Donor rule was there in the first place (it helps support the server and ensure staff loyalty), it was a big turn-off to a lot of longtime committed players, myself included. A fortunate few of us were accepted without donating, but for the most part it seemed like anyone with their parents' credit card could "buy" staff, which prevented mature, responsible individuals from ensuring proper player management and frequently created a shitstorm of abuse. This in turn resulted in a high turnover rate among mods, unless they got in good with the admins+, which allowed them to continue their shit while the higher-ups weren't looking. Ultimately, this good-intentioned rule caused a ton of problems and people either didn't have the balls or the authority to revoke it. Good for you guys for finally understanding why this rule causes more trouble than good. I think you'll see marked improvement in the quality of staff when you accept players based solely on their activity and maturity and not how much they paid.

(Edit: Sorry for my rant, this rule has just bothered me for quite a long time.)

While I understand why the Donor rule was there in the first place (it helps support the server and ensure staff loyalty), it was a big turn-off to a lot of longtime committed players, myself included. A fortunate few of us were accepted without donating, but for the most part it seemed like anyone with their parents' credit card could "buy" staff, which prevented mature, responsible individuals from ensuring proper player management and frequently created a fudgestorm of abuse. This in turn resulted in a high turnover rate among mods, unless they got in good with the admins+, which allowed them to continue their fudge while the higher-ups weren't looking. Ultimately, this good-intentioned rule caused a ton of problems and people either didn't have the balls or the authority to revoke it. Good for you guys for finally understanding why this rule causes more trouble than good. I think you'll see marked improvement in the quality of staff when you accept players based solely on their activity and maturity and not how much they paid.

 

(Edit: Sorry for my rant, this rules just bothered me for quite a long time.)

Nobody has ever been accepted based on the amount they paid(with the exception of paid mod/admin). You see, even if they donated and applied, they still arent buying staff(That was available in the past with Paid Mods but they were frowned upon for not earning it, and they were on a stricter leash.) since its up to the higher staff when its all said and done. Anyone who got mod was accepted as mod due to the opinions of the HigherUps. While i believe this will increase the number of staff, it may decrease the quality as it can attract some 10 year olds who dont work(obviously, bc theyre 10) and couldnt get their parents credit card. While you can make the point that they have to be 16 to apply for mod, thats easily bypassable. I was admin by the time i was 12/13, and this was while the rule was more strictly enforced(To clarify, i started playing xG 6 years ago in 2010 when i was just about to turn 11.) All in all, this may or may not be beneficial, but we'll still have to wait and see it out. It shouldnt be a big deal since people SHOULD still be getting accepted due to personality and capability anyway. I think this change was probably to get more staff for the summer.

Here's the truth of it.

The rule was in place forever. The rule was also ignored forever. Not once since I've been on the decision-making team for TF2 staff has donations EVER been considered when we picked candidates for staff.

Arguing that it is, in some form, a quality control mechanic is erroneous. It hasn't been a deciding factor for a good, long time. The rule was being ignored, so we petitioned to have it removed.

Initially, we met with resistance on @Rhododendron's part, but something changed his mind and he agreed to have it removed.

It was never a paid position. It was also never a deciding factor. It was a useless rule that wasn't being enforced, so we nixed it. That's all.

Try not to make a big deal out of it.

Here's the truth of it.

 

The rule was in place forever. The rule was also ignored forever. Not once since I've been on the decision-making team for TF2 staff has donations EVER been considered when we picked candidates for staff.

 

Arguing that it is, in some form, a quality control mechanic is erroneous. It hasn't been a deciding factor for a good, long time. The rule was being ignored, so we petitioned to have it removed.

 

Initially, we met with resistance on @Rhododendron's part, but something changed his mind and he agreed to have it removed.

 

It was never a paid position. It was also never a deciding factor. It was a useless rule that wasn't being enforced, so we nixed it. That's all.

 

Try not to make a big deal out of it.

I don't think it could have been ignored to begin with though. Users literally cannot submit a Staff Submission without donating; they don't gain access to the actual submission form page to submit one without having donated first. That is, if you're a new user, and you click on "Post a New Thread" in the Moderator Submission section, it will (or rather, would) lead you to an error page that says they don't have the necessary permissions. So, anyone who ever posted a Staff Submission post donation change back then, was already eligible for a Staff rank. Higher-Ups didn't really have to look into their donation history at all. That being said, this is only assuming that once someone donates they are automatically given Donator rank (without a Higher-Up having to assign it to them).

Though I agree with Scoot, what's done is done. It's no longer a thing, so lets just bury the hatchet :coffee:

Shouldn't it be called a staffsubmission instead of a moderator submission? That title though.

I'm glad this change was finally made

ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy that's rad

50 posts to be eligible for mod? Isn't that a tad too much? I don't want people to spam the forums with nonsense to accomplish that. Why not give the option to be active on team speak for 'X' amount of hours or say 35 posts?

Just a suggestion.

50 posts to be eligible for mod? Isn't that a tad too much? I don't want people to spam the forums with nonsense to accomplish that. Why not give the option to be active on team speak for 'X' amount of hours or say 35 posts?

Just a suggestion.

I think it used to be 100. It's just to show that the player is dedicated and active within the discussions related to their division and players and such. If they spam to get that number some people -1 for that, and if they cant get it without spamming that may reflect their maturity and impatience.

Hmm

I cant possibly see anything bad with being active and helpful in the community. Being a mod gives you powers to ban people from our servers, and shouldn't just be given to anyone. Being able to engage in discussion is a valuable asset as a staff member, and it also gives others a general idea of how you communicate with other people. Besides, you can get promoted without reaching the requirements. The 50posts/20hours is just for making an application.