[Rejected] Admins Applications - Replying to Posts

I think that people should be allowed to reply to each others posts within admin applications, criticize points, and encourage further discussion. In the FAQ and through people in the higher-staff people replying starts "unnecessary arguments" because people "don't agree" or think someone's "post is dumb". I think that many of the recent discussions are necessary considering:

1. the hesitancy of higher-ups to make their own criticisms or moderate
   
2. the outcome of admin applications being quite polarizing
   
3. the willingness of higher-ups to accept/reject apps which have few supports/reapplies based off personal opinion
   
4. the complexity of some of the arguments being made
   
5. the system creating more of a skew at both ends due to decrease in required post count
   
6. the connectivity between the higher-up team and the general server population
   

I am also going to say that this seems to be something that has been enforced extremely loosely and at personal bias. I remember many posts criticizing my views on candidates when I was a SA (not able to reply on applications) being left up by a former VP due to the person in questions point being "valid" and I've seen many threads where higher-ups themselves thank posts that are calling into questions someone's opinion. I think someone should be able to reply to someone else, but if there is a rule then people should stop subjectively enforcing it whenever they feel like it.

Everyone should be able to use admin applications to have a discourse and forum moderators should be moderating that discourse not by judging which opinions are right or wrong but by measuring whether the conversation is constructive. If someone posts "your opinion is dumb, you're wrong and retarded" there's obviously an issue there, but I think that trying a little bit more transparency and encouraging an environment of free thought is better than the dysfunctional, fragmented system SG has right now.

I think there's some posts that are useful when they are responding to others and some that are just unnecessary and probably will cause unneeded posting. It should probably just be up to CA discretion on whether or not it contributes anything to the application. Currently though, there is no gray area, people aren't supposed to be responding to each other at all. This rule has been getting completely ignored, even when I've reported a post for it. I have no idea what the deal is with that, but it's extremely confusing.

So going back to this, can we please get clarification on what the deal is with this? This rule was discussed between (some) of the BD/IA team a while ago with Gumline's application where it was quite obvious that some replies needed to be deleted because of the rule that was in place about posts. They weren't and even when I reported a post for it, it was ignored.

Fast forward to now and the rule is being enforced again in some weird kind of way with some posts being deleted on Blake's application with others staying up when they aren't votes. Was there some kind of rule change without the public being notified or is everyone just on a different page in regards to the rule?

@Caution @delirium @Prez

Respectful further discussion doesn't hurt the thread at all whatsoever, and I don't think that it should be deemed inappropriate. As long as it is not flaming/disrespecting someone I don't really see an issue with it whatsoever. It improves the admin application if anything since it gives other players more knowledge about the applicant. As @Dominic mentioned with Blake's application there are many posts trying to have civil discussions that are being removed for the reason of "unnecessary" (very vague reason with no actual reasoning to back up why it was unnecessary). In my opinion all the posts that were made were constructive in some form (atleast regarding my discussion with @H4XOR) and were just trying to clear up some misinformation about the applicant. If you shut down the members who are trying to clear everything up you destroy free speech with it.

On Blake's app I haven't deleted all the posts because I'm waiting to get more input from CA+, not because I think they should stay. I stopped deleting them because it was getting ridiculous and should be double checked by someone else. I deleted the first batch for arguing over is Blake should respond to his posts or not, which in my opinion is really unnecessary. Then there was the argument over what H4xor said in his reply, which, in my opinion, wasn't needed. All they we're doing was arguing, which is not needed in a admin app. They all already gave their opinion in their own reply's and they don't need to argue over someone else's. The post we're deemed unnecessary because I can't write a whole paragraph in the delete message, saying why it should be deleted. Unnecessary was all that came to mind. All the deleted posts can be seen by CA+. They can be reviewed and restored.

I do think the rule should be reviewed and re-evaluated.

On Blake's app I haven't deleted all the posts because I'm waiting to get more input from CA+, not because I think they should stay. I stopped deleting them because it was getting ridiculous and should be double checked by someone else. I deleted the first batch for arguing over is Blake should respond to his posts or not, which in my opinion is really unnecessary. Then there was the argument over what H4xor said in his reply, which, in my opinion, wasn't needed. All they we're doing was arguing, which is not needed in a admin app. They all already gave their opinion in their own reply's and they don't need to argue over someone else's. All the deleted posts can be seen by CA+. They can be reviewed and restored.

 

I do think the rule should be reviewed and re-evaluated.

I was questioning H4XOR on what he said in his response because if the comment he made after being questioned about Blake was meant purposely, then he would be just lying in front of everyone on an admin application. In my opinion it's a lot better to ask about it then to possibly let it slide and skew an admin application. Also, it's a good idea to respond on the admin application then in private in my opinion so that the possibility of the point not getting through would happen.

As @Dominic mentioned with Blake's application there are many posts trying to have civil discussions that are being removed for the reason of "unnecessary" (very vague reason with no actual reasoning to back up why it was unnecessary). In my opinion all the posts that were made were constructive in some form (atleast regarding my discussion with @H4XOR) and were just trying to clear up some misinformation about the applicant. If you shut down the members who are trying to clear everything up you destroy free speech with it.

In my opinion, all you did was call out what someone said in their post and start an argument. An admin app isn't the place to have "civil discussion". You are meant to reply to the application with reasons of why you think the applicant should or shouldn't be an admin. You give your vote and that's it. You shouldn't be having a chat with other players about what they voted in the app.

It's literally stated in the rules, before you reply to an admin application.

Do not attempt to try and call out others or start arguments in application threads.

In my opinion, all you did was call out what someone said in their post and start an argument. An admin app isn't the place to have "civil discussion". You are meant to reply to the application with reasons of why you think the applicant should or shouldn't be an admin. You give your vote and that's it. You shouldn't be having a chat with other players about what they voted in the app.

 

It's literally stated in the rules, before you reply to an admin application.

So what am I supposed to do about it then? Nothing?

@Ray, you can have a discussion with him in Teamspeak, discord or pm about what he said. Everyone has their own opinion, whether it's true or not. An admin app isn't the place to debate about what you think is true or false in someone else's response. In my opinion, if everyone was aloud to argue about what someone else said, it would cause a lot of unnecessary drama in the app.

@Ray, you can have a discussion with him in Teamspeak, discord or pm about what he said. Everyone has their own opinion, whether it's true or not. An admin app isn't the place to debate about what you think is true or false in someone else's response. In my opinion, if everyone was aloud to argue about what someone else said, it would cause a lot of unnecessary drama in the app.

Fair warning when responding to Admin Applications:

DO NOT MAKE USELESS POSTS. Every post in an Admin Application should be about the applicant and your personal thoughts on them. They should include some depth of detail as to why you feel they will make a good Admin. Please try to keep your posts as respectful as possible, even when listing cons about an applicant.

 

Posts that are basically a joke/trying to outright flame the applicant/argue will be deleted and your ability to post in Admin Applications may be considered for removal. Do not attempt to try and call out others or start arguments in application threads. Your ability is to simply vote on the application, not question the legitimacy of someone's vote. CA's+ and the applicant himself retain the right to defend / question the legitimacy of accusations. Any posts that we deem to violate this will be deleted.

Every post in my opinion that has been deleted has followed these rules, I don't see a reason to change this to be completely honest. Unless something is blatantly untrue like in Nano's application where someone said that he was never active, and I clarified that karma reset not that long ago where he couldn't be as active as he is promising to do now, messages should stay clear to the admin application and should not be conversations between anyone except the applier, CA+, and the person the applier is responding to if they want to clarify something to them.