staff bias?

[Teemo]

This is a dicussion about staff dealing with sits they were involved in. I believe that if a staff was involved in the situation, another staff(if one is online) should deal with the situation. This is mainly due to the fact that no matter how proffessional staff are, there will always be a little bit of bias (imo) if they lost out financially.
opinions?

 

[Moon The Goon]

thats what staff complaint are for

 

[Teemo]

thats what staff complaint are for

i am not accusing any staff? I believe there should be guidelines for staff about this and wanted public discussion. This is what General Dicussion is for

 

[Venom]

Player bias?

If a staff member can't get involved in a sit where there is a bias it completely eliminates their purpose.

If there is a 'bias', measures have been put in place to dispute that.
Use them.

 

[Imperial Watch]

Depends on the situation.
If it was a clear violation of the rules without a doubt then I don't see the problem.
If it falls into a gray zone where it is questionable if rules broken, then no.

 

[rat]

It would be more effective if staff would pass on situations that they were directly involved in to another member of staff.

Regardless of training or principles, it is still very difficult to remain objective in a situation that you were involved in directly and may have lost out on.

 

[rogue]

i dont get what you're saying when you say 'financially' please elaborate

 

[Fasool]

Doesn't need to be discussed here, it is to be discussed by the staff members themselves. It has been discussed by them already and they have it dealt with so there is no point in this thread anyways lol. If you think a staff member is biased make a complaint, simple.

 

[rat]

The fuck you mean bro? It is easy as shit to stay objective if you can see that you're just a crying bitch, and the other guy was just better than you.

thats quite hard for most people to be able to accept

 

[John Daymon]

there will always be a little bit of bias (imo) if they lost out financially.
opinions?

i am not accusing any staff? I believe there should be guidelines for staff about this and wanted public discussion. This is what General Dicussion is for

i don't get your message really?


No, I'd not say we're biased at all and if we'd ever consider ourselves to actually be biased in a situation we often try to avoid dealing with it, some members of the community already know that it is this way. I'd say that the only time and the only reason people often think that someone is biased is when a decision is made against them or their friends.

 

[Teemo]

i don't get your message really?


No, I'd not say we're biased at all and if we'd ever consider ourselves to actually be biased in a situation we often try to avoid dealing with it, some members of the community already know that it is this way. I'd say that the only time and the only reason people often think that someone is biased is when a decision is made against them or their friends.

My message is to prevent any bias sits by saying staff members may not contribute to the outcome of a situation beyond the point a normal user would if they were affected financially.

 

[Appricey]

Speaking as a staff member that works very closely with all members of staff, I see no biased decisions being made by any staff member. Staff members are always impartial to any situation (at least in my experience ) like @John Daymon said the only times I've ever seen a member of staff accused of being biased is when action is taken against them.
If a staff member has witnessed a rule breach then it is their duty to deal with the situation fairly and impartially which I see nothing wrong with in its current state.

What saying to me is complete shambles if I'm honest.

 

[✿ Squeeker Melon ✿]

Yes course there is staff bias as there is player bias, it just should be that admins should go on duty instead of walking around. Makes salt from being killed less easy to take out on the poor rdming sweatervest

 

[Adrish]

This is a dicussion about staff dealing with sits they were involved in. I believe that if a staff was involved in the situation, another staff(if one is online) should deal with the situation. This is mainly due to the fact that no matter how proffessional staff are, there will always be a little bit of bias (imo) if they lost out financially.
opinions?

I completely agree, I myself, however hypocritical this may seem, try not to involve myself in administrative sits where I am one of the parties involved and have lost out financially. Furthermore, I have spoken to the staff team in regards to this, especially @John Daymon, we both came to the conclusion that this is a good idea, however needs a lot more to it.

Such as situations where it's an outright rule break, such as someone running around and gunning people, or even when no other staff are on. Furthermore, some staff members feel that they are not biased. Which is a fair assumption, as they are still staff. But this isn't to test how bias people are, it's to decreases any bias (if there ever was any).

thats what staff complaint are for

Funny, but true. However, if this is implemented, it can possibly decrease the need for a staff complaint. As the staff member affected isn't dealing with it.

Player bias?

If a staff member can't get involved in a sit where there is a bias it completely eliminates their purpose.

There will always be some sort of bias, whether being done self-consciously or purposely. Again, this can help to decrease the 'bias factor'

Depends on the situation.
If it was a clear violation of the rules without a doubt then I don't see the problem.
If it falls into a gray zone where it is questionable if rules broken, then no.

I couldn't agree more.

Contrarily, some staff members may not have a problem with jumping into a report every once in a while, but if this becomes a 'thing.' It, as previously addressed by other staff members within the staff meeting, can waste time that can be better used doing other reports.


Accordingly, in the next staff meeting. I will attempt to bring this up again, with an appropriate draft of some sort of document of when this 'method' can be applied and when not to.



damn im a nerd xd

 

[joey]

Staff members are trusted to not be biased. I think that in long term situations, they should be omitted from decision making if they are involved - they are currently not allowed to be involved in disputes unless they are openly admitting to making a mistake or that the evidence proves their warning/ban false. I think this is a step in the right direction but as Adrish said, sometimes they need to be involved in situations that would cause unnecessary harm if they player was not dealt with.

 

[Alliat]

A staff member is a judge. This means he will only look to the rules that are broken, play time and previous bans/ warnings when giving a punishment.

He should look objective to the situation when making his judgment. He should be the third party in this situation and just look at the facts.

It would be really strange if a judge in real life could punish te suspect that just broke into his house. Why? Because he is not objective anymore. His emotions will have the influence on the judgment. The same thing should apply to Perp. Involved in the situation? Let a different staff member take care of it. With they exception when there are no other staff members online.

 

[✿ Squeeker Melon ✿]

How about we have an admin on duty system so bias is -90% reduced?