Forum

Login to ZARP

Forum

Training Policy Suggestion

View BBCode Back »

Plankton wrote:

Rick Johnson wrote:

Plankton wrote:

Rick Johnson wrote:

Plankton wrote:

Rick Johnson wrote:

Plankton wrote:

Rick Johnson wrote:

Plankton wrote:

Don't really like this idea, rather than lots of people doing training should just be a select few who train the entire staff team or any new staff members, this way a few people become good at actually teaching the people how to be effective staff. Rather than having 10 people training people who don't go in depth with the rules. Would allow for way more consistent and higher quality staff members

With all due respect, there is no correlation between the number of trainers and their comprehensivity. While I agree that you gain more experience as you train more staff members, I fail to see why a vaster number of trainers can't have equally meticulous trainings, at least roughly so. Assuming that more trainers produce worse trainings is frankly just wrong, so I can't accept that argument.

Additionally, as .uzi stated, we would tighten the training regime quite a bit which would mean that lead team members wouldn't be running around without proper knowledge of how to train new staff members anyway. So even if I suppose that your argument is valid, there is already something put in place to prevent that from happening.

Also, being able to talk directly to a single or pair of trainees allows you to convey things a lot easier than you would be able to when training a larger volume of people. Hence why it would be better to train more staff members individually, ignoring my previous arguments.

Should read the full post before commenting

I read the entire post mate.

Edit: I see that you elaborated on your argument in another reply. That's on you for not including that in your initial argument

not at all lol

Anyway, my argument still stands. I don't think it's inherently difficult to become proficient in training staff members at all. Perhaps the measures you mentioned would be necessary if this task was on a higher scale of difficulty, but as it stands, it isn't.

I still believe we should improve the training regime in general though, to make sure the lead team are following a set of guidelines that allow for fewer mistakes to happen.

To clarify, I think your idea is quite good, I just don't think it's necessary for this topic in specific. Hopefully, you understand what I mean.

I disagree the standard of staff today is very low, something like this would raise the bar on staffing as a whole and make it a much more serious matter

You fail to understand what I mean. I actually do agree that there is some level of incompetence in the current staff team (Add me on Steam if you want me to elaborate, will be a fun talk lmao - Steam in signature)

My point is that it isn't a difficult task, it's just the guidelines and regulations surrounding it that is bad. If we improve these guidelines, regulations and policies we will see an increase in the quality of our staff members because the lead team members that train them have gotten more specific instructions on how to do it.

You see, if a lead team member is incapable of going in-depth himself, why can't we design a guide that essentially does it for them?

In my opinion if a lead team member needs an guide to give a competent training experience due to the fact he is incapable then he shouldn't be lead team

I agree, but clearly, we are looking to factor out the incompetence and I simply think my way of going about it is optimal because it will require less hassle for the CM/HA team (picking good trainers) and still allow the trainings to achieve a fair amount of detail.

I think we will probably have to agree to disagree on the method we choose in order to filter out the incompetence, but in the end, we can both agree that a lead team candidate should, realistically, be able to train new staff with a decent level of competence.

BBCode

[quote="Plankton" post=1139779][quote="Rick Johnson" post=1139761][quote="Plankton" post=1139747][quote="Rick Johnson" post=1139740][quote="Plankton" post=1139737][quote="Rick Johnson" post=1139727][quote="Plankton" post=1139726][quote="Rick Johnson" post=1139661][quote="Plankton" post=1139607]Don't really like this idea, rather than lots of people doing training should just be a select few who train the entire staff team or any new staff members, this way a few people become good at actually teaching the people how to be effective staff. Rather than having 10 people training people who don't go in depth with the rules. Would allow for way more consistent and higher quality staff members[/quote]

With all due respect, there is no correlation between the number of trainers and their comprehensivity. While I agree that you gain more experience as you train more staff members, I fail to see why a vaster number of trainers can't have equally meticulous trainings, at least roughly so. Assuming that more trainers produce worse trainings is frankly just wrong, so I can't accept that argument.

Additionally, as .uzi stated, we would tighten the training regime quite a bit which would mean that lead team members wouldn't be running around without proper knowledge of how to train new staff members anyway. So even if I suppose that your argument is valid, there is already something put in place to prevent that from happening.

Also, being able to talk directly to a single or pair of trainees allows you to convey things a lot easier than you would be able to when training a larger volume of people. Hence why it would be better to train more staff members individually, ignoring my previous arguments.[/quote]

Should read the full post before commenting[/quote]

I read the entire post mate.

[b]Edit:[/b] I see that you elaborated on your argument in another reply. That's on you for not including that in your initial argument[/quote]

not at all lol[/quote]

Anyway, my argument still stands. I don't think it's inherently difficult to become proficient in training staff members at all. Perhaps the measures you mentioned would be necessary if this task was on a higher scale of difficulty, but as it stands, it isn't.

I still believe we should improve the training regime in general though, to make sure the lead team are following a set of guidelines that allow for fewer mistakes to happen.

To clarify, I think your idea is quite good, I just don't think it's necessary for this topic in specific. Hopefully, you understand what I mean.[/quote]

I disagree the standard of staff today is very low, something like this would raise the bar on staffing as a whole and make it a much more serious matter[/quote]

You fail to understand what I mean. I actually do agree that there is some level of incompetence in the current staff team [size=2](Add me on Steam if you want me to elaborate, will be a fun talk lmao - Steam in signature)[/size]

My point is that it isn't a difficult task, it's just the guidelines and regulations surrounding it that is bad. If we improve these guidelines, regulations and policies we will see an increase in the quality of our staff members because the lead team members that train them have gotten more specific instructions on how to do it.

You see, if a lead team member is incapable of going in-depth himself, why can't we design a guide that essentially does it for them?[/quote]

In my opinion if a lead team member needs an guide to give a competent training experience due to the fact he is incapable then he shouldn't be lead team[/quote]

I agree, but clearly, we are looking to factor out the incompetence and I simply think my way of going about it is optimal because it will require less hassle for the CM/HA team (picking good trainers) and still allow the trainings to achieve a fair amount of detail.

I think we will probably have to agree to disagree on the method we choose in order to filter out the incompetence, but in the end, we can both agree that a lead team candidate should, realistically, be able to train new staff with a decent level of competence.

Forum

Training Policy Suggestion

View BBCode Back »

BBCode

Quick Menu

Menu

153 PLAYERS ONLINE

ZARP Discord & Steam Group