Community Consultation on PD Chief.

[Efan]

Hello,

We have asked community opinion in the past on the balance of “power” within the community. Previously there were concerns of individuals holding too much power by being high ranks in the PD and staff team simultaneously. With a new recruitment cycle opening up for CoD we wanted to consult again what the prevailing community consensus was.

Please vote here to have your opinion heard and comment below any opinions or other options you want considered.

Thank you,

Community Management.

 

[Lucius Husky]

Could an option be added for Chiefs of Department who are staff can only be Mod at maximum? I'm not sure how other think about this but I believe that the most efficient way would be having the person needing to focus on one thing, either PD or staff. I feel like moderator wouldn't hurt as there isn't much to focus on apart from regular staff duties.

A great example of this was McGlinchy that actually resigned from Staff (admin I believe even) due to him being the Chief and I really liked and appreciated that choice, and it also resulted in a great chief, although this is also dependent on the person themselves ofcourse.

Just my opinion and a small request, take it as you like.

 

[Efan]

Could an option be added for Chiefs of Department who are staff can only be Mod at maximum? I'm not sure how other think about this but I believe that the most efficient way would be having the person needing to focus on one thing, either PD or staff. I feel like moderator wouldn't hurt as there isn't much to focus on apart from regular staff duties.

A great example of this was McGlinchy that actually resigned from Staff (admin I believe even) due to him being the Chief and I really liked and appreciated that choice, and it also resulted in a great chief, although this is also dependent on the person themselves ofcourse.

Just my opinion and a small request, take it as you like.

Done

 

[Bnjemann]

Preferable choice would be an ex staff, not an admin (I chose the wrong option on the poll) preferably an existing command member but that won’t make much difference.

At the end of the day I don’t care what position whoever holds it has, as long as they’re good at it but would prefer this be left below admin if possible (Unlikely to be possible)

 

[Clarky]

It shouldn't matter what rank they hold on the server, I don't see this as any relevance to the process. If they perform both staffing duties and PD duties to a satisfactory standard, then there's no issue. It's just a matter of picking the right person to commit to such tasks.

 

[Ellie]

I personally don't think there should be any rank limit on the chiefs positions, just give it to whoever are the most competent, responsible, have the best law and policy knowledge and actually want to spend several hours a week on moving PLPD forward. It can be literally anyone, someone who just got senior officer, someone who had corporal for a while and want to try something new, someone who just lost their 'new player tag', someone with the honorary rank, a helper or an admin. I don't see why it should focus on staff rank and not how competent the person who will actually become chief is.

My opinion is that ANYONE should be able to apply and get the role, no gatekeeping. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Jack Bruhross]

I personally don't think there should be any rank limit on the chiefs positions, just give it to whoever are the most competent, responsible, have the best law and policy knowledge and actually want to spend several hours a week on moving PLPD forward. It can be literally anyone, someone who just got senior officer, someone who had corporal for a while and want to try something new, someone who just lost their 'new player tag', someone with the honorary rank, a helper or an admin. I don't see why it should focus on staff rank and not how competent the person who will actually become chief is.

My opinion is that ANYONE should be able to apply and get the role, no gatekeeping. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As much as anyone should be able to go for it, It is decently demanding for a staff member to go for this role opening. Since alot of the staff members have jobs. That means your juggling a job, Staff and a high PD role.

 

[Ellie]

As much as anyone should be able to go for it, It is decently demanding for a staff member to go for this role opening. Since alot of the staff members have jobs. That means your juggling a job, Staff and a high PD role.

Yes definitely, but if you can't have everything on your plate the role isn't for you. I still think anyone should have an ability to apply for it and have the same chance of getting it and it should be based of skills and knowledge, not what kind of other rank you're already holding.

I want a competent chief, not the scrape the barrel just because they don't have a staff rank, so I think that's why some people don't want any staff to hold a high PD rank because they feel this is their only chance. Not because of their skill, but there is no one else.

 

[Jack Bruhross]

Yes definitely, but if you can't have everything on your plate the role isn't for you. I still think anyone should have an ability to apply for it and have the same chance of getting it and it should be based of skills and knowledge, not what kind of other rank you're already holding.

I want a competent chief, not the scrape the barrel just because they don't have a staff rank.

I think we both have somewhat of the same opinions seeing this point!

 

[Lucius Husky]

I want a competent chief, not the scrape the barrel just because they don't have a staff rank.

Not being staff doesnt mean they're not competent. There is a selection for a reason in which the best candidate will be chosen. How will limiting what ranks should hold high responsibilities as staff and PD make a difference in finding the perfect person.. ?

 

[Ellie]

Not being staff doesnt mean they're not competent. There is a selection for a reason in which the best candidate will be chosen. How will limiting what ranks should hold high responsibilities as staff and PD make a difference in finding the perfect person.. ?

By limiting and telling people that they can't apply doesn't mean they're not the best candidates. So why limit the applications unless "people under mod" don't feel like they're the better candidates? Isn't it better to get the Chief rank against everyone else and then truly feel like you deserved it and without any bias but only because you're the best candidate?

What if the best candidates is above moderator, then what? Then they will be held back by an set of arbitrary rules for no reason.

 

[Lucius Husky]

so I think that's why some people don't want any staff to hold a high PD rank because they feel this is their only chance. Not because of their skill, but there is no one else.

What is this logic?? Why should someone holding a staff rank have a higher chance of actually being chosen? I myself believe that even some staff members that hold a high role aren't even fit, not only for their rank.

 

[Lucius Husky]

By limiting and telling people that they can't apply doesn't mean they're not the best candidates. So why limit the applications unless "people under mod" don't feel like they're the better candidates? Isn't it better to get the Chief rank against everyone else and then truly feel like you deserved it and without any bias but only because you're the best candidate?

But then comes the issue with time limits... Someone that is for example already holding the rank of admin has way less time to put into the PD and maybe even less motivation.

I already gave my example with McGlinchy, McGlinchy did such a great job and spend lots of time into the PD and made this possible by resigning from admin.

And yes, In my opinion everyone has a chance, also admins, they should apply if they want the position. But if they are chosen they should resign from their staff position. My issue is not people applying while they are staff and hold a high rank. My issue is them keeping the role after and then leaving AND their staff role and PD hanging somewhere midway. And this has happend enough times before.

 

[Jack Bruhross]

What is this logic?? Why should someone holding a staff rank have a higher chance of actually being chosen? I myself believe that even some staff members that hold a high role aren't even fit, not only for their rank.

I think your looking at this the wrong way, What ellie is trying to say is why limit a staff member by saying you cant hold this rank aswell as a staffing rank. if the person shows they can commit enough time towards both why not let them at least try. instead of saying you have a smaller chance if you are staff. Make it fair make everyone have the same chance. But, take into account how much time and effort they can commit.

 

[Ellie]

But then comes the issue with time limits... Someone that is for example already holding the rank of admin has way less time to put into the PD and maybe even less motivation.

I already gave my example with McGlinchy, McGlinchy did such a great job and spend lots of time into the PD and made this possible by resigning from admin.

And yes, In my opinion everyone has a chance, also admins, they should apply if they want the position. But if they are chosen they should resign from their staff position.

Acer was the best Chief we've ever had, he had a fulltime job, was the most active Senior Moderator and still put an extremely high standard within the PLPD - wasn't an issue then?

Asking again, because I'm really curious now;
What if the best candidates is above moderator, then what? Then they will be held back by an set of arbitrary rules for no reason.

 

[Lucius Husky]

I think your looking at this the wrong way, What ellie is trying to say is why limit a staff member by saying you cant hold this rank aswell as a staffing rank. if the person shows they can commit enough time towards both why not let them at least try. instead of saying you have a smaller chance if you are staff. Make it fair make everyone have the same chance. But, take into account how much time and effort they can commit.

My issue is, is that his has been promised plenty of times before, yet the activity is POOP not even a month after.

 

[Inchs]

The issue before was that staff would hold roles for months and never have a risk of losing it and not giving new players a chance, if it's being voted on regularly then I don't see it as a problem but new players should get a chance

 

[Lucius Husky]

Then they will be held back by an set of arbitrary rules for no reason.

No, but if they are choosen they should make the right decision and focus their time on one thing, not multiple.

 

[Inchs]

Acer was the best Chief we've ever had, he had a fulltime job, was the most active Senior Moderator and still put an extremely high standard within the PLPD - wasn't an issue then?

Asking again, because I'm really curious now;
What if the best candidates is above moderator, then what? Then they will be held back by an set of arbitrary rules for no reason.

Because staff often hold the roles for extended amounts of time giving other people no chance to achieve the same rank

 

[Collier]

I was not originally going to reply but I can't leave these terrible arguments out in the open without being heavily contested.

How will limiting what ranks should hold high responsibilities as staff and PD make a difference in finding the perfect person.. ?

Because the 'perfect person' might very well be above that rank, and might very well be able to do both. This is a game after all, and people from all walks of life play it, being an incredibly effective Chief and Staff Member whilst also having a full-time job is something that can be, and has been done, Acer is a wonderful example for this.

What is this logic?? Why should someone holding a staff rank have a higher chance of actually being chosen?

Literally nobody said this, but whatever. What many of you fail to understand is that qualities that make a good Chief, or Command Member in general, also make a good staff member. The overlap isn't some big conspiracy like some people like to idiotically believe, nor is it the dumbest of all opinions which would be to call it a "friend circle".

My issue is them keeping the role after and then leaving AND their staff role and PD hanging somewhere midway. And this has happend enough times before.

There is precedent to remove Chiefs who are underperforming, this has also been done pretty publicly, this only serves to punish people before they have the chance to underperform, which is unsurprisingly not a given as many who think like this think.

The issue before was that staff would hold roles for months and never have a risk of losing it

This is not only not at all true anymore, nor is it a good argument, as even if it were, there would be absolutely no correlation to their staff rank, so this is a really weird thing to bring up in this context.

yet the activity is POOP not even a month after.

This is fair, but we've gone through many, many Chiefs recently, more quickly than ever, so this problem is solved. How is it logical to punish someone who hasn't done anything wrong, or punish them for other peoples' mistakes?

and not giving new players a chance

Again, just because someone isn't a staff member doesn't mean they aren't a new Chief. A Chief can be both new and staff!

Because staff often hold the roles for extended amounts of time giving other people no chance to achieve the same rank

This is a bad argument. It does not explain why "other people" are better than staff members who also have not held a Chief position.