The Application Threshold

Please Note: The TotalFreedom Forum has now been put into a read-only mode. Total Freedom has now closed down and will not be returning in any way, shape or form. It has been a pleasure to lead this community and I wish you all the best for your futures.

    85% is way too high. Because of the threshold, 3 objections can wipe out your application and it is very hard to bring the ratio to a stable ground.

    My first suggestion is to lower the threshold to a more even number, something that fits with the average vote count. Something like 65%. This is good as we can maintain a ratio for the votes. Having a ratio also can show who is respected in the community, and who isn’t. This shouldn’t be too important for applications though.

    My second suggestion is to remove the threshold. One of the reasons this is better is because it prevents members, that vote for reasons such as out of spite, harming the final result. In the current applications one person could wreck the final result. Having no threshold can prevent that. Additionally, if the applicant has a rough history, the EAO can decide what to do. Having no threshold gives the EAO even more control of the application’s result, which is completely fine. (I prefer suggestion 2 more)

    Object. We need to have high standards for who we're accepting as staff since the amount we have already is ridiculous. People who object out of spite are a separate problem and their votes can be accepted or rejected on a case-by-case basis.

    The threshold should remain, it just shouldn't be the be all and end all. It should be treated as a general guide, with the EAO weighing up the subjectivity of the validity of some of the votes if applicable.

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

    I fully intend to bin off thresholds entirely. They are utterly stupid and make tf into a huge popularity contest which is not the point of them but is what just ends up happening.

    Wild1145

    Network Owner at TotalFreedom

    Managing Director at ATLAS Media Group Ltd.

    Founder & Owner at MastodonApp.UK

    ↩ @'Ryan' And no threshold isn't even more of a popularity contest? What happened before there was a threshold was applicants just sucked up to the EAO to get what they wanted. Whether there is a threshold or not will not change whether voting is a popularity contest. To change this, you'd need to find an actual way to encourage smart voting rather than the biased crap that usually ends up happening.

    ↩  Panther And if that should happen the EAO would simply be replaced. I've hated the voting scheme for a long time, and in recent years it's got much worse.

    I want admins / ops to contribute meaningful feedback to an applicant. Frankly I don't care if they vouch or object, I care about why because that tells me a lot more about them than a numbers game.

    If 90% of the community hate someone because actually they're damn good at their job, I'd take them over some muppet who can't tell a smite from a ban any day of the week.

    Either way my point is the system needs to be overhauled, and it is on my radar, and once the dev stuff settles back down to a more business as usual pace, my intention is to get hands on and involved in the process.

    Wild1145

    Network Owner at TotalFreedom

    Managing Director at ATLAS Media Group Ltd.

    Founder & Owner at MastodonApp.UK

    ↩ @'Ryan' Do admins really always turn the vote into a popularity contest though? What happens when people have legitimate reasons to object on an application, but the EAO or someone else with the power to do so decides that the application is going to go through anyway? That sounds like a great way to end up with people who are competent, but have malicious intent on the staff team. In my opinion, that's a million times worse than having someone who's just plain incompetent, because it will be harder to justifiably get rid of them and they will probably end up doing more damage. It's important that we try to avoid situations where people object for petty reasons, but along with that being a problem that can be eliminated without removing the threshold, it's also more important that everyone has a vote that counts so we don't wind up with some crook who happened to appeal to the higher-ups.

    After doing some math, I have concluded that the threshold rate is indeed too high:

    • If 1 person objects, you need at least 6 vouches
    • If 2 people object, you need at least 12 vouches
    • If 3 people object, you need at least 17 vouches
    • If 4 people object, you need at least 23 vouches
    • If 5 people object, you need at least 29 vouches
    • If 6 people object, you need at least 34 vouches
    • If 7 people object, you need at least 40 vouches

    Plus, people tend to vote based of other people, if one person objects, expect like 3 more people to object.
    Vouch for 65%