TOPIC: [CM Suggestion] Keeping Lead Team Apps OPEN

Aspect wrote: Allow me to go into detail as to how some of your opinions are based on inafctualities and baseless assumptions. No offense meant to you - simply defending my statement.
Aspect wrote: Is this immediately a bad thing? People change their opinions, but their original opinions are still out there. If you could please describe to me how having old opinions on an application outweighs the positives that I have listed then that would be great.
Aspect wrote: As stated in response to Annie, if a seperate section would be created for Lead Team applications then finding the Lead Team application you want wouldn't be tedious at all. There are only so many Lead Team applications, and the old ones when locked will automatically go to the later pages. I'm also sure it can easily be assumed that the staff member would bump their application occasionally, although whether they do or not would not make the difference that it wouldn't be difficult at all to find (if there is a seperate section; I can understand this criticism a little better if all applications share one and the same section).
Aspect wrote: That is exactly why I said in my post that the post can be locked if the applicant believes that they no longer desire the job. Besides, to get Lead Team you must have good communication with the current Lead Team. Therefore the possibility of the applicant becomming Lead Team will be discussed, especially if the applicant is close to getting it that particular week. It isn't at all hard to imagine that the applicant would share the fact that they do not desire the job anymore at this point, and that's also going to be the moment when the Lead Team member will tell them to get the post locked by changing their original application to reflect their current beliefs and desires.
Aspect wrote: Thank you for your opinion!

Cons:
Locking the application would have a certain bennefit such as the person who is applying can consider to not reapply again and or create a whole new application and 50% of the application would be most certainly be full of bumps or unconstructive posts.
The staff member would have maybe during his application a bad thing and would never know when he's actually going to get accepted or improve over the things he might've done wrong.

Pros:
Having the application open would be bennefitial for the LT and the user because they can see the positive and negative comments of the application and do not need to repost the post over and over again.

TLDR:
you should weigh out the positives and negatives and you'll come to a discreet solution

spodermon wrote: I will tell you how wrong you are, because I am always right
spodermon wrote: And he can just as easily revoke his application. Check my response to Aspect's criticism as I won't repeat myself.
spodermon wrote: And how is that a negative? Creating a new application practically never happens, something I already stated before. And why is it a bad thing whether or not the thread would be full of bumps or unconstructive posts? Please do tell.
spodermon wrote: That's an issue even now. If this suggestion were to be accepted that would not change.
spodermon wrote: As well as the other positives that I have mentioned in my post, maybe read that.
spodermon wrote: Agreed, thank you for your feedback.

This is an interesting proposal and I do understand both sides.

As a solution to forgetting applications, why not pin all active lead team member applications, it's usually not more than 10 so you could see all active applications on the first site?

You defended your statements in a similar manner of saying apple juice is better than orange juice, thought you convinced me on the second point. That being said i'll try to clarify my other points as i was probably not being clear enough.
Raeker wrote:
Yes it's a bad thing when you think about it. Seeing a topic with 20 pages of -Support because maybe that guy hasn't gained trust. Those will always remain there and for newer people in the lead team voting can be easily confused if that guy is still an let's say abuser or not, and i think it has a subconscious effect on the end result, that's all.

Raeker wrote:
So if the applicant no longer desire the job he's supposed to lock it. Do you actually think this isn't going to be a big issue where plenty of people forget about the post completely. I myself can see this as a major issue and the only fix are weekly applications. If you wait for 2 months and then you'll eventually give up and do something else, right at that moment the lead team consider giving you a chance and you say yes not because you want anymore but because you finaly got what you worked for those 2 months, ending up in you resigning after 1 month. I could go on all day but at the end of the day it only takes a few seconds of visualizing this rather than looking at the hole thing on paper.

Once again I think this is a very good idea for the community and urge the CM team to properly consider this change.

I also have to apologise to Aspect for my late response to his criticisms, what I'll go deeper into right now:
Bread Lee Guy Less wrote: This is indeed a fair assumption to make and a very good point. However, Lead Team members hardly ever look at the applications and its feedback, and I am personally of the opinion that the positives outweigh the negatives. Though I can understand why you don't think so, and I fully respect that.

Bread Lee Guy Less wrote: Currently one of the major requirements for becoming Lead Team is having good communication between staff and Lead Team. Although in a few minor cases it is not needed as much (because they excel in other areas) it is actually something that Lead Team want to see from the applicants. Therefore it is safe to assume that there's always a good bond between the applicant and the current high ranked members and they would know if the applicant is still interested in the job or not.

Although I once again understand your concerns and if they turn out to be a real issue then I am all for reversing this change. However, like I said before, I believe that there are too many positives to not at least try this, as I truly think it will have a positive impact on the community.

:supyes:

It's wierd is they are technically they are "open" but they don't vote on them most of the time and skip them so they aren't really "open" are they?

SkeletonWarrior wrote: I'm talking about locking the application post, not about whether or not they're handled in the meeting.

Raeker wrote: Yeah that is kinda wierd they just lock it

Bumpety bumpy

Raeker wrote:
Fatty Fat

Sounds goood Playa Playa

Sounds good

_Lewis wrote: Rippety Teamspeakstaffy