Recruitment Policy poll

[Momo]

In general, I agree with you, but as I said before sometimes there are alright reasons to make an exception

 

[Collier]

Weird, you're the only one moaning about this poll

 

[Daigestive]

@Collier in a community full of kids I couldnt care less. IDK how you think this is useful.

 

[Bnjemann]

Like what?

 

[Collier]

You seem to care a great deal

 

[Deleted member 5920]

@Collier I told you before though, don't act as if you'd never heard the claims.

 

[The HitMan]

@BigBenji When its there friends of course.

 

[Momo]

@BigBenji at the time of Sir Zac's promotion, he seemingly cared a lot more about being a dispatcher than a cop, however, due this did not meet the required rank. As he was at the time to my knowledge the best applicant and the most active dispatcher. An exception was made for him. Which I personally believe is very reasonable.

 

[Collier]

@efan I've never acted like I hadn't heard your claims, but it was your word against his. I am not prepared to take drastic actions on a he said/she said situation. Obviously this is no longer the case and as soon as evidence surfaced it was dealt with, I just wish it had come sooner

 

[Momo]

@The HitMan I can't talk for previous chiefs, however, so far neither Collier or I have made use of this policy let alone maliciously.

 

[The HitMan]

@Momo Lost faith in the PD.

 

[Momo]

@The HitMan alright then

 

[Aquaa]

@The HitMan you gonna just completely ignore a good example of when it was used to benefit someone in a legit way?

 

[Tilin]

It's highly unfair to let the chiefs bypass this. You see the person from your own eyes, you see what they act around you. Not what they act like around others.

Anyone should go through the same process, but let's say there's an emergency to promote someone to an acting position because it's urgently needed, then a public statement would be nice.

This shouldn't be allowed for full time promotions.

We also expected to vote for other CoDs, but a lot of us were highly disappointed and felt as if it was unfair. Even if it may not be true, to us it felt like YOU chose the chiefs because of your personal opinions about them. Not because WE needed them. We all know if the community had a vote Tom wouldn't have gotten his rank for 12h.

 

[Momo]

If personal bias is your issue here than this still doesn't make much sense, as this all also applies to anyone who goes through the normal recruitment policy.

 

[Momo]

Also, ima just repost a reply I left on another post of a good example when this policy has been used in the past

At the time of Sir Zac's promotion, he seemingly cared a lot more about being a dispatcher than a cop, however, due this did not meet the required rank. As he was at the time to my knowledge the best applicant and the most active dispatcher. An exception was made for him. Which I personally believe is very reasonable.

 

[McGlinchy]

I would like to counter that, I don’t see how the normal recruitment process can be bias when there is roughly 5 people voting and discussing

 

[Momo]

One more thing I would like to add that this policy is often used in collaboration with a different division and not just by the chiefs

 

[Momo]

@McGlinchy Sure it can, you can hold a common bias. Besides this like I've just mentioned this policy can be used in the exact same way, it does not just have to be the chiefs. We could have a discussion with 5 other people and decide it a good idea to allow an exception.

 

[Momo]

@McGlinchy I do agree tho that decent change to the policy would be one where the chiefs on their own can't just bypass it but would have to it after a discussion with the relevant command team