"Nowadays the threat of being banned for rule breaks only applies to people With long ban histories." Or if you tilt a senior admin enough that they lookup your address and go after you and your org for anything and everything even if it means greatly harming the server population
I was also toxic when I held my Helper rank, if someone was being a retard I'd straight up tell them that and tell them to fuck off, and guess what, no one cared. 0 staff complaints, not spoken to once.
We do not base applicants on community support no, it is still done the same way @John Daymon. What I mean with my reply, is that if we want more staff we would need to lower the overall quality of our staff members that we accept. By quality of staff I mean their ability to judge situations from a neutral stance, and how they react to the given situations. Obviously if we are to do this, it will have an impact on your reports/admin sits. If you think this is worth it at this point though (Which I can partly agree to, we do need more staff!) we can lower our standards and see how it turns out.
Myself, Bolli and Collier are fully aware that we need more active staff members, but we want to make sure we don't recruit people who we do not trust with the power given to them, not necessarily because we think they will abuse, but because we don't trust them to have an objective standpoint in some situations (For example), among other stuff that we look at.
As for your last point, as far as me and Collier are aware we have never told staff members they can not react or post on enforcer applications (Unless they're Administrators), if this was decided before I was promoted I would not know. We do also have a slack channel where all moderators can discuss enforcer applications, so they do get to voice their opinion.
@Collier They only resigned because you gave them an ultimatum like a dictator. I’m going to expose you and your whole totalitarian senior administration team