@"erin"#107
“thus this application is going to be denied early as it will not likely hit the approval threshold.”
I don’t think you made the right decision. I counted 10 people vouching and 16 people objecting to that application (1.6) which doesn’t seem like enough of a threshold to deny that application so early on.
It would have taken an extreme number of vouches to outweigh the objections. The early denial makes sense.
It still wouldn’t have been out of the question. I don’t think it’s right to prematurely close an application just based on foresight.
Erin also voted on the application so to make a comparison it would be like prematurely ending the horse race while your horse is in the lead.
So the actual count came down as follows
10 vouch
20 objection
With a 75% approval threshold, with 20 objections it would require 50 vouches in a row (more than any application has ever received) in the 10 or so days the application had left. I didn't want the applicant to get continually bombarded with further objections which would not exactly help the situation either. Also want to note that the votes themselves were all counted, even one from a rather sketchy account.
And if you have an issue with my counting - even with the numbers you have provided, it would have required 38 vouches in a row, again all of these coming without a single objection in between, to hit the threshold.
↩ resident_user It would be out of the question - the amount of votes needed is way larger than the number users who frequent the forum/server on the daily. It's also stupid to compare applications to horse racing considering admin applications aren't a competition.
50 vouches in 10 days.
5 vouches per day (assuming no objections).
I doubt that quack would ever pass the threshold.
You are being stubborn. There is no question that it’s a competition to get admin on this server.
↩ @'r00t'
So do I, but I think denying him that chance is an unequal treatment because of the previous circumstances extended to applicants.
The Admin office (And by delegation Assistant admin officer) have ultimate jurisdiction in this matter, there is no requirement for them to have an approval threshold at all, and they can close applications whenever they like. It's 100% a legacy thing that we have a % approval rate and set number of days that they stay open for, but it's not a requirement for one thing, and personally is something I don't fully even agree with myself.
↩ resident_user How is it a competition the people voting are already admin or aren't even interested in becoming an admin?
I think you misunderstood what I said. It is a competition for players to obtain admin on this server and it would not be out of the question for admins to have an interest in which next player becomes an admin.
In addition, this server is structured like an inverse pyramid because it never stops accepting admins despite having a dwindling supply of regular players who are uninterested in becoming admin.
↩ resident_user In addition, this server is structured like an inverse pyramid because it never stops accepting admins despite having a dwindling supply of regular players who are uninterested in becoming admin.
In reality this is how TF has operated for nearly it's entire existence... At least for most of the last 8-10 years anyway. Most players want the additional power that comes with admin, and given the nature of our server, it shouldn't be a huge shock to anyone...
↩ resident_user In addition, this server is structured like an inverse pyramid because it never stops accepting admins despite having a dwindling supply of regular players who are uninterested in becoming admins.
This is partially why I had intended to close applications after this round for the next 6 months.
↩ resident_user I'm not really seeing your point if I'm honest... The bottom line is the EAO / AEAO can approve / deny apps as they see fit. Steven is responsible for the Freedom game-mode and it's executives, as well as ensuring the game-mode is operating as it should be.
I don't see any point in denying applications for capable individuals just because we want to make some made up numbers all align... It just puts people off in my experience. There's no harm in having more / less admins, it's not a real issue.
You are describing a server in which the system is sovereign, at TF the individual is sovereign. Perhaps a more constant application system is needed, but denying an action early shouldn’t cause such hostility.
↩ resident_user I guess it's probably a shift in the way the community (and people in general) see in-game staff. Historically staff have played along side players without issue, and other than rare occasions, we've never had issues with players feeling they couldn't play due to the number of staff online.
You make a good point generally though, we do have a lack of engaged players, and the forums now highlight that more than ever. It's certainly not something lost on me, and has become more and more apparent. I suspect some of that is down to the Discord being more active as a platform, and historically our forums being mostly Ex-admins and players rather than just players.
I suspect we need to do a better job at highlighting when we are / are not accepting applications, on previous forums we had the ability to mark applications as "On Hold" and would regularly not be accepting applications, and likewise now a number of our roles don't accept staff roles all of the time, though we probably haven't done a great job of making that clear.
resident_user You must be (or have been) a very active and regular player for continuously dropping suggestions and criticism about the place. I can't link you to any player I've seen, would you mind telling me your username?
As a current applicant, what is the minimum vouch to object ratio?
