Critiquing Suggestion

[Random]

Outline:
I'd like to suggest a new critiquing guideline for applications in general. It is a method I've seen work on many other sites that ensure equal viewing over all applications where by the moderators must start at the bottom of the section and critique applications upwards. Its basic idea is to prevent the bias and the tendency to ignoring or miss applications that have been sitting there for a much longer time without attention.

What would change:
Moderators would have to start at the bottommost application and critique upwards, WIPs would have to be checked because of users inability to edit titles and threads where a fellow moderator has the last post could be ignored until someone replies.

How it benefits us:
The very first thing it would change is the removal for the need to bump, with moderators looking from the bottom up bumping would become counterproductive. It would also ensure that everyone's application got a look before some new app that has been sitting up for one hour gets approved. And most importantly it would remove the ability to be bias from moderators in general. The main bias I'm thinking of is what I've been on the receiving end of on several occasions and only recently realised was unfair: if they wanted to go look at that app that their friend juts posted they would have to look through everyone else's apps and get the ball rolling there first.

Problems/concerns involved:
The three main concerns I've thought of are the ability for people to troll an application by endlessly posting comments and thus preventing it from being looked at by a moderator. What would happen in the event of a moderator opening up an application that really had no idea what to do with. And what to do when someone immediately responds to an application a moderator has just posted in.

Personal opinion on how to overcome them:
The first one could be prevented by the normal method of dealing with trolls and maybe the possibility of a temporary creation section ban for people that are inclined to do that. The second issue is a bit harder, though the fairest way to do it would be for the moderator to send off a message to someone they think would be best to handle the situation then proceed with the applications they can handle. The last issue is the easiest: Ignore it until you've finished with all the other applications that are sitting there and then get back to helping the individual with their application.

[Blazestorm]

Well I approve this method and your fixes to the problems for all it's worth. I'll post again if I notice anything.

[Dare]

I like your proposal Random! *stands behind*

[Ivory Deluge]

I support this most definitely!

Great idea, Random!

[Yuki Aisu]

Before my full reply is read, I would like to have the following recognized and considered:

Spoiler!

Right now, there's an argument fallacy in the original post that I see and is bothering me slightly. Poisoning the well, and also indirectly a personal attack on a group/person, ad hominem ["to the man/person"], seem to exist. The suggestion declares that the moderators are biased towards their friends and states that Random, the original poster, has been affected by this personally. It seems to state that the moderators should always start at the bottom of a sub-forum, under almost all circumstances.

The reason it is a fallacy is because it, while suggesting a proposed benefit for the good of the forum, is based on the underlying warrant that the moderators are biased and will ignore apps in favor of their friends' apps, or just flat out ignore applications entirely. Regardless of the truth of this, it has no place in this suggestion as it immediately sets moderators up to be in a detrimental position. In responding to your suggestion, I presume that you want well thought-out responses. In order to respond thoughtfully, we must consider all parts of your suggestion and analyze your post. The intention is not to over-analyze. The second qualm I have is that anyone who posts in defense of the current system is automatically put in the category of 'moderators and friends', which I have already said to be a poor position. One can not hope to respond when doing so implies that they are somehow flawed as people in a way they shouldn't be. The 'poisoning the well' and 'ad hominem' arguments put one group above the other. Ad Hominem as a whole is the lesser of the two and entirely possible to be there only by implication of poisoning the well, as the more common 'ad hominem' is not immediately apparent.

For that reason, I may be slightly less than kind in the following post and advise people, all people, to take a step back and approach this with a calm head. It is entirely possible this was not Random's intention at all. In fact, I don't think it was at all [and I may simply be oversensitive], but to anyone who feels this way, please do take a step back. I can't stop anyone, even myself, from being slightly irritated, but I advise a calm attitude.

On a slightly different implied message, "We didn't start the fire."

In my honest opinion, this is a good idea in theory but impractical and unsettling in practice. I understand that this may have worked on other forums, but TNF is a unique place that is inherently different from most other forums.

The expectation in this suggestion is that moderators work from the bottom-up. While that might be practical for some styles of applications, I feel there are a few problems. First, your comments/concerns will be addressed.

The outline is more or less mirrored in the 'what would change' section, except for one point, so I will skip it. [The fact it has worked on other forums is irrelevant to me. TNF is a living, breathing, cohesive organism unlike any other. What works in some places may not work here, perhaps because of how many moderators we have or perhaps because of how our applications run or perhaps because of our general style].

The 'what would change' section denotes two points.

"Moderators would have to start at the bottommost application and critique upwards, WIPs would have to be checked because of users inability to edit titles and threads where a fellow moderator has the last post could be ignored until someone replies."

The underlined portion is being ignored because it is a 'why', not a 'what'. This will be addressed either in my comments here or in my comments regarding how it would benefit us. Now then, your points boil down to, as I understand them:

1. Moderators should critique applications starting from the bottom of the section
2. Work-In-Progress threads must be checked

I will first proceed to disagree with #2. I see no reason why moderators, who already check the creations sub-forum, should also be mandated to check a cluttered board where users can put up any number of in-progress ideas, whether they be half-baked or fully thought out and completed. One of my threads alone has over 30 jutsu. Expecting anyone to check that for a relevant comment [whatever that might be] seems a little excessive. Things don't go to the WIP boards without user permission anyway, and users can post in their own threads, so there's no real reason I can see to do this.

The first point is what I believe to be your main point, so I will go ahead and address it in regards to the rest of your suggestion, as well as what follows:

The very first thing it would change is the removal for the need to bump, with moderators looking from the bottom up bumping would become counterproductive. It would also ensure that everyone's application got a look before some new app that has been sitting up for one hour gets approved. And most importantly it would remove the ability to be bias from moderators in general. The main bias I'm thinking of is what I've been on the receiving end of on several occasions and only recently realised was unfair: if they wanted to go look at that app that their friend juts posted they would have to look through everyone else's apps and get the ball rolling there first.

This reads to me as:

1. It removes the need to bump
2. Everyone's application gets looked at in the order of the duration from the last post
3. It removes the ability to be bias from moderators.

I underlined what I believe is the most critical point, as I think that #1 is an off-shoot or side-effect of 2 and 2 is the 'cause' with the intention to achieve the 'effect' of 3. In regards to this set of , as well as the information presented above in the section discussing 'what would change', my comments are as follows:

Moderators will continue to be bias. This does nothing but stop one potential method we have. If I wanted to, I am sure I could come up with ways of getting around this suggestion. It wouldn't take that long... Yeap. Got one already. And two. And three. In the span of about a minute. So I have to post from the bottom up? Sure. I can discuss a jutsu over MSN/Skype, get it to where I think it's acceptable, and the moment I get to it, bang, approved. Bias, because clearly I didn't do any on-site balancing, ect. I could post pointless nitpicks and critiques on only one thing or ask for clarification to questions I already know the answer to [and cite that I do not want to read all the posts and ask questions that have already been asked]. There's no way you can remove the ability of moderators to be bias. We're human. We have our moods, we have our speeds, we have our methods. We have friends on the site and people we don't get along with. And yet you expect us to have no bias, whatsoever, as though we are simply observing. Except we are not simply observing. We are actively taking part in the forum as well as its RP and are going to be biased. We pull things when they are abused in the RP. And when we pull it, we are biased against the application because we don't want to see the abuse continue.

You can not stop the bias of people. There is no suggestion that I can think of that can do it that will not, at the same time, have a massive number of negative effects. [I recognize this is breaching into a logical fallacy, but that is not my intention].

You also can not assume everyone's application will get looked at properly. Why? Well, moderators may scapegoat one moderator into dealing with users that most mods don't want to deal with, for whatever reason [remember the bias? That's still there], and that moderator will bear the brunt of a user's bad attitudes and applications that are annoying to look at for some of the moderators. In effect, you'd have a constantly disgruntled moderator looking at the applications of people that are thought of as the most likely to be argumentative/try for something hax/be a pain to deal with. That just lends itself to biased critiques and arguments. And eventually, the user will quit [which may spark further dislike of the scapegoat moderator, which may lead to them quitting], or the moderator himself will give up and decide its simply not worth it. Thus, the number of moderators drops, we are forced to pick up users who are not ready to be moderators or work harder ourselves, we become even more annoyed or angry, and eventually you have a tiny set of a few people dealing with everything and being constantly stressed. Then you get mods who aren't nice. They don't care about your feelings. And their responses will come as so: "Do x, y, and z with your application. That's what I want. The end. and screw your compromise, what I said is balanced." It's a stretch, I'll admit, but it doesn't seem practical in implementation and will not help matters any. Furthermore, it can actually cause a fair bit of harm. It isn't so much of a stretch to say that moderators do not get fed up of being scapegoats/feeling like they are not respected or do not matter/become nasty enough to warrant a demodding. There have been 4 examples in my time as an RP Moderator alone, so that's got to count for something. And this suggestion can definitely cause staff to become disgruntled/feel disrespected/ect. and stop moderating.

Beyond that, it also cuts our usual methods of critiquing. If a user responds to one of our critiques, some of us prefer to respond immediately because we have the jutsu's general wording in our mind already. We have a general train of thought going and it's easier for us and leaves us less stressed. I prefer to do training from the bottom down, but if an event like the chuunin exams are coming up and I have limited time, I shouldn't finish the chuunin exam training threads first? Even though an extra day or two for the others doesn't mean a lot? Some events can be stressful, but I should put my personal feelings aside and robotically ignore any stresses the userbase may have and do things by a specified code? If I venture out of the training section, I have to start from the bottom for any application section? Even if, say... Enkou was to see a complicated EJ made by me and didn't feel comfortable critiquing or dealing with it? Should she make a spam post or make a critique she's not sure of? Should Zett be venturing into S-ranked kinjutsu jutsu that he is confused about? I should not slip through to applications that users have asked for help on because "there are apps below yours"? If there's a second mod opinion asked for and say, Zett asks me for an opinion in a thread he just posted in, I have to go through ALL the threads below what Zett asked for help with before I can help?

It doesn't make sense to me. Sure, it might be good for the users in a theoretical sense, but you're asking us to work how you want, when you want, without any sort of compensation [because you just took away the ability to deal with our own apps at our leisure]. That's a good way to have a group of nasty, smarmy moderators who don't like you at all and don't even bother to hide it.

Finally, there are users and moderators where it is clear they do not get along. Just for example, because I am confident this is not true, say Enkou and I were at ends with each other. I thought everything she posted was ridiculously overpowered and she had no idea what the rules were. What was she even doing? I was convinced there was a level of stupidity there that was unparalleled on the forums and frankly, I was sick of her. Enkou thought I was a ridiculous moderator and had no idea why I was even modded. She thought I came off as overbearing, my critiques were not intelligent at all, and I was frankly making things up as I went. This suggestion would force us into a confrontation if I wanted to critique any subforum with one of Enkou's threads in it and she wasn't the one who had the most recent response. This seems like it would rather easily invoke conflict and distress across the forum.

Furthermore, we have actual lives. We flit through what we can when we can, but to expect us to follow a standard code is both excessive and unfair. We're trying our best here to get what we can done. Evidence of that is the number of apps in each section. It's not overflowing like it used to be. It's not even into 2 pages on any subforum, for crying out loud. To expect us to work harder and in a very specific way is asking for trouble. We get no compensation and have no incentive to do so. Telling a volunteer worker to work harder and only in a specific way when you have zero leverage isn't very likely to be effective. No matter how polite the request, asking someone to shoot themselves in the foot is asking for trouble. I, for example, have 6 projects/exams due this week, plus 9 different essays I need to write. By Saturday. The fact I'm critiquing anything when I'm supposed to be on vacation is a miracle. We all have our problems, but we are trying. We are trying hard. I'm sorry that you think there are problems with our methods, and I recognize that we're supposed to represent all the RPers together as moderators of the RP-staff, but sometimes there's just no helping it.

I really wish our feelings would be considered a bit more. I understand that feelings can be hurt and people can be unhappy when their jutsu are ignored. At the same time though, the moderators aren't exactly the cheeriest bunch when they can see badmouthing in the chat threads or have to hear about it through the grapevine. Then, after that, when they're working on helping people get things approved and start RPing with them, are being told their methods are not the right way to do them. That's not fair to us. I don't mean to turn this into an 'us' versus 'them' type of argument, but I've done my best to explain why I think the suggestion is impractical, using both prior events and personal feelings and opinions.

I hope you can understand why I don't think this is a workable solution.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Below are some of my personal feelings. You are neither required to read nor obligated to, it's just something I want to put out there.

Spoiler!

I said this before, but I don't really feel like the position of the moderators are being considered. Sure, we're the big bad blues [or in my/Zett's case, and Tensei's when he was a global, green], with all the experience and mod power and authority behind us... But does that really make a difference? It's easy to jump on a bandwagon and skim through a thread without considering all the repercussions, but I don't really know if that's what the right course of action. Just because we're staff doesn't mean we're unshakeable and rock-solid. We try. We want to RP too. We're people too. We have lives. We have feelings.

No one likes to be told that they're not good enough and need to do better, because their best isn't good enough.

At the very least, we don't.

[Akayuuki]

None of you have the right to tell any mod to work harder, do you know why ? because your not good enough to be a moderator your self, or else you would be one, so asking someone to be better at something when THEY are not even good enough to do it, is completely ridiculous...

[ShoUzumaki]

That is a derogatory mark Aka and it's not true. I believe that most people are good enough to be moderators but they lack motivation or any worthwhile tie to the site. This is not asking them to do better this is asking them to stick to a guideline that will hopefully help the site in general. Refrain to useful things Aka, not trying to shoot people down.

[Akayuuki]

That is a derogatory mark Aka and it's not true. I believe that most people are good enough to be moderators but they lack motivation or any worthwhile tie to the site. This is not asking them to do better this is asking them to stick to a guideline that will hopefully help the site in general. Refrain to useful things Aka, not trying to shoot people down.

Motivation is part of being good enough, you cant become a marine without being motivated, you can't become a cop without being motivated, you can't become a doctor without being motivated, so probably try and actually realize what "Good enough" entails before making a post like that Sho.

EDIT: no worthwhile tie = no motivation = my point once again being firmly stated by yourself.

[Kennyrules]

That's enough. Everything that needed to be said, has been said by Yuki. The staff, at least, is fine with his explanation. He speaks for each of us, since this thread was directly targeted at the members of staff as a critique of our processes. Random has our response, it is his turn to reply.

[Ivory Deluge]

Sometimes, it helps to state those things in the original post, Aka. That way, it doesn't sound like you're outright insulting somebody, which is something both sides are trying to avoid I think. ^^'

From my perspective, it's not about working harder. This is just a silly rp forum. I'm personally not expecting anybody to put more work into this place than they would an actual paying job or college work. It's just trying to work from another angle and see how that works out. Obviously, from what Yuki stated above, there are just too many obstacles in the way that could prevent this system from working. But it never hurts to suggest something, right?

[Edit] Totally didn't see Kennyrules' post. Sorry!

[Random]

First of all I'd like to point out that when you open a post with information about how I'm poising the well and such you are immediately doing so yourself. I would also like you to point out what part of the suggestion made you think this as I attempted to go over this with a friend to avoid such a conflict and I'd like to be able to rectify the problem.

Alright, now first of all you seem to have misunderstood what I mean, when I say WIPs would have to be checked am referring to WIPs that for some reason are sitting in the application section. Even though we have the WIP section some people still post their first character ever in there as they are not used to the forum yet, and because regular members can't edit their own titles to say it is now ready or whatever someone would have to look within the app before they could tell if the WIP was ready to be looked at or not.

The next issue with your understand is you underlined 'and threads where a fellow moderator has the last post could be ignored until someone replies.' which was actually a new point and was my suggestion of what to do when the bottommost application has a moderator as the last post within it. If a moderator had posted last it means someone is looking at it and if you so choose you are able to skip that application and continue with the others because of this fact.

My aim here is to get everyone's applications looked at in a clear and orderly whereby no one's application is no more important than anyone else's. The only kind of bias it can overcome is the choice of who gets the critique first. At the moment you can have an application sitting there for weeks if you forget to bump it, and weeks even if you do, but this suggestion would overcome this issue.

Now you've listed two ideas to overcome this so I'm going to do my best to reason them through. First of all discussing an app over MSN or Skype or whatever? That's done, everyone knows it is. In this case you'd still have to go through all applications before it and critique them before you could approve that one jutsu you want to approve - which means the system is working.

Posting pointless nitpicks and critiques is covered by my suggestion of what to do in the event of spamming to keep someone from looking at an application, people still need to remember that just because someone is a moderator it does not put them above the site rules, and if they are going to such an extent to avoid doing moderator work why would they even maintain the position?

Now, I'm not asking the moderators to not be bias (and that is not to say I am in fact asking you to be bias), you seem to have got yourself caught up over the single point of bias and your post suggests you think it is the only aim of this suggestion. The aim of the suggestion is to make it so all applications are looked at in order of last looked at by anyone so that people stop missing out on critiques while applications all around theirs are being looked at.

Scapegoat-ing moderators into dealing with unliked members is wrong, but if it could pop up because moderators are now required to look at all applications without skipping then it is already here, just without the scapegoat-ing aspect as in the thread would be being ignored altogether.

Your usual methods of critiquing could easily be slotted into this system, the need for second opinions could also be worked with and a part of my initial suggestion dealt with what to do if you come across a application you really just can't deal with at that moment. My suggestion is not a be all and end all. There is plenty of room for improvement and suggestions of your own to make it work. I'm feeling quite stonewalled here where there is plenty of opportunity for discussion.

I'm going to stop there, I feel the rest of your post stats to really take things personally and that was not my aim. This suggestion does not say 'critique all these applications because I say so', I'm just suggesting to start from the bottom and move up. If you were only going to do three applications today, and three tomorrow then that is all you'd do. It's just this way people would get more critiques more often instead of having to bump every three days and hope someone was interested in their thread this time.

One last thing because I refreshed before posting and saw Kenny's post: This is not what you make it out to be. It is simply an idea I got from watching the workings of a site Zett introduced me last year and thought could actually help TNF run smoother. Like I said right at the beginning, if you feel it is a personal attack against the moderators please explain to me why so that I can avoid sounding like that in the future.

[Decadence]

Random, not to be rude, but do you ever do any critting?

If a user responds to one of our critiques, some of us prefer to respond immediately because we have the jutsu's general wording in our mind already.

What Yuki said there is very true. Sometimes you will read an app and perhaps know how to fix it or guide it to being acceptable. If a user is answering quickly, and the process can be done within the hour, that's one less app to worry about later. Why wait when everything is fresh in your mind? It would be aggravating to have something to say but not be able to say it until you've dealt with every other app in waiting. By then, the mod may have even confused themselves, having multiple custom jutsu wording clogging their mind.

I feel your suggestion might slow things down, because some app's are simply less complex, and they shouldn't be forced to wait while others - with perhaps more argumentative users behind them - are dealt with.

Like Yuki said, it's a good idea you have, but on TNF it's very impractical, and in fact, inefficient considering the amount of users and the amount of app's that can be posted at once. Maybe try critting app's here often and you'll have a better understanding of what Yuki is trying to tell you.

[LightKage]

I find it sad to see days when the staff is asked to change their methods of handling things. And while I understand it came from a place of good nature, it is a sign that the user-base is displeased with the staff work ethic. So, in earnest, I hope to answer, add too, or shed light on things you mentioned Random and those who agreed with this method.

Now, I will skip over the poising the well comment, since it will be better if Yuki spoke on this subject himself to point out where he personally saw those comments.

Now, as for those who post in WIP, normally, even if it is not done by the staff but by the userbase, they would either be told that they posted in the inappropriate section. And normally, a staff member, during a sweep, will see that this application needs to be moved and if it is noticeably a work in progress, then it will be moved. However, on the subject of new member who post their first characters or items, they too get a notification of a different kind. They are told that they are in the wrong area, given a link, but are generally allowed to stay because it is their first time. There it receives critiques and often sometimes waits for approval. This is the general method of how WIP works. If you are done with your changes, normally you post saying you have posted or pm a moderator informing them that the change has occurred. I'm not sure as to why one would need to constantly check a WIP thread if it is just that: a work in progress. It is not at the stage for a full critique.

To this point I tip my hat. I'm not sure if you noticed, but many of the staff already use a similar method! Many staff members will allow one thread to be commented in by one member if they feel like their associate do not need a second opinion. It allows others to deal with threads that may need more assistance. However, with the method that you bring to the table, it brings in the ideal of "Someone else handled it, so it is no longer my problem. Time to move onto the next." Now, you may ask how this is any different from the current method, I will explain. If you take the current method, in which any moderator can just pop into a thread and comment vs the suggested bottom up method [which, mind you many of the staff loosely does half the time], it makes it so that the staff no longer has the freedom to comment in any order. The bottom up method forces the staff to deal with those at the bottom of the list, who in many cases they may have no idea what to do with. This in turn, causes members of the staff to wonder how to wait for someone to post in that section before we can move onto the next. And when someone finally decides to give a poor job of critiquing, things can begin to move again.

When I read this mentioning, I found it odd. Why should the staff be forced to critique bottom up if the bottom application is something they are currently discussing behind closed doors? So the rest must suffer because of it? And if the staff does skip it, what's to say that the member who was skipped won't assume that the bias of choosing who goes first is there? Because at the end of the day, things get discussed or certain applications need time to think about how to fix or reword. The staff is not perfect, so why expect their methods to be perfect. And while I know certain members disdain having to wait days or even weeks for their next powerhouse or game changing technique, its the staff that have to review in the end whether or not something is allowable. Furthermore, what if the staff comes to an application that they just do not wish to touch? Because, like every member knows, myself included, there are some applications that will drive people up walls and cause hair to be pulled. Should the staff, in their frustration, post critiques just to move on to other applications that will not cause the same effect? Again, expecting perfection from people when those asking could not reach perfection either. So in the end, what is the staff to do? Why, they do the manner that was described in the beginning of a paragraph. They move on, find an app they are comfortable with or something they can actually give a critique on. Applications that the userbase seem to think that there is bias over. Not to say that there isn't moments of bias, but its not there as often as the user base is seemingly perceiving.

Discussing over MSN/Skype? Its already done, even among the members of the userbase. I can clearly remember a time where I would ask for help when I was a new member via msn. Its a done deal. As for having to go through all the other critiques, who says that someone who is not of staff could critique those at the bottom until it reaches ones that the staff actually want to critique? And when I say critique, I do not mean pointless nitpicks, I mean an actual somewhat well thought out critique. Again, the system posed has a number of flaws that would end up returning it to a worse for wear state or the point we are at.

I'm unsure of what you are suggesting then. If this methodology isn't based on not being biased and giving everyone a fair chance to get a critique or a stamp rather than wait many many weeks, then what is this? Because, as my favorite psychologist professor once told me "Either you are pregnant or you are not. There is no in between". And try as I might, he was right. You can either be telling the staff to be biased, or asking them not to be biased with this suggestion, no matter how well you try to place blankets and photos to make it look attractive.

As for dealing with unliked members, you do no realize what a taste that leaves in the mouth of anyone who critiques correct? Having to deal with members who constantly grate against one's nerves, it causes whomever has to deal with them, whether it be average member or staff, to have to deal with the other apps with residual anger. Which, if you do not know, causes staff to critique harder or unfairly at times. So why carry anger across to people who do not deserve it? It is why there are members who have more tolerance for things than others on the forum side. [Whether they rage on the other side of the screen is something people do not generally know.] So, continuing with your suggested method, they would have to carry that residual anger over to the next threads they have to look through? Because if we stop critiquing, then why are they still on staff, as pointed out so graciously by you. They are neglecting their job and are need of disposing. Better to deal with the thread now than later. Moving on.

Actually, no this method forces the staff to abandon the normal methods of critiquing all in the sake of a self-justified fairness. And despite what that sounds like, this suggestion seems like that is where it is coming from. If it is not, please correct me. But at this time, I doubt I'm incorrect with that conclusion. Returning back to topic, this methodology forces staff to have to deal with every single application, no matter if they are well equipped to handle the application or even understand it. Or to critique on applications that are being discussed upon behind closed doors in order to get to other comments. This suggestion does not leave much wriggle space for the staff to work with.

And now we have reached my favorite part of your rebuttal. Ignoring the user's personal feelings. Because whether you like it or not, you are going to have to deal with them. The suggestion is asking to rework the staff's way of doing their job. No matter how well you try to conceal it, whether it be on purpose or not, you are personally attacking each member of the staff and even those who aren't even on staff. Because it is someone who is telling those maintaining the site how to do their job. And while, I understand you have experience on other sites, Yuki and Deca both brought it up. TNF is a living and breathing creature just as every other forum is to be treated as such. Some thing that work on other websites may not work here, due to the people who are users of the board.

If you feel as if I am attacking you personally, I apologize. I ask that you forgive me if I have insulted you in any manner. But I will reiterate this. If it is felt like a personal attack, then it is most likely due to the sudden uptake of suggestions that are being brought up to the staff as to how to do their job. Or that they themselves can bring an idea that will get things done better or faster. Without knowing any part of what goes beyond the scenes and the work and effort that is put into it. A four year old telling the president to do his job a different way and how to do it is an spit in the face, no matter from which angle you look at it. Even if you say it was not your intentions, you also have to remember how things are perceived by others as well.

Good luck with your suggestion. Something tells me you are going to need it.

[Oirarana]

Alright, that's enough, I think this thread has gone as far as it can without something going wrong.

The apps sections have not been clearer in as long as I can recall, at least a year if not longer, so it's not like we have a massive problem with apps. Some staff members do crit in a loose bottom up method. I know that when I get the time to, I myself do for the most part, but flexibility is a good thing in a volunteer job that is already difficult enough. Some apps are harder to deal with than others (perhaps moreso than the staff member at the time feels they can handle), or might be part of a discussion within the staff section, and it would hold up other apps if it was necessary to crit that app itself.

We're always grateful for feedback, suggestions, and opinions, but this thread has said what it needs to and has the potential to cause issues, so it is now CLOSED