[PMC]Further Defining "Active"

[Guest]

With the next staff clearup coming up in one week, we're looking to further define what constitutes someone as being marked as active. At the moment we track a number of statistics from modreqs completed per server to whether people are participating in moderator voting and whether each individual has logged into the servers within the last four weeks, which is the only metric that we've all agreed upon within our previous discussion.

 

While each clearup we are removing permissions of people who are not logging in over the past four weeks and notifying them of the change, there is a significant number of people who have very low playtimes on the servers and either 0 or 1 modreqs completed among both. Among our recent meeting, of those who attended, the general consensus was that people not contributing to a degree should have permissions removed as returning to staff is only a case of notifying a head admin and showing activity across four weeks.

 

How can we further measure metrics such as login time to detirmine whether someone is active? What would be an acceptable threshold for us to use? We're interested to reach out on this subject before implementing agreed changes as we're not looking to find reasons to remove people, merely to ensure that our staff list is representative of whose who are active.

 

So in the interest of further talking through these changes before we implement anything for the upcoming clearup, feel free to share your feedback here so we can refine how we approach the measure of activity going forward.

[Silversunset01]

I am loathe to set any sort of hard modreq cap, however it may be worth it to come up with *some* sort of req metric to use. either some sort of average, or something based on play time / req count.

 

Granted modreqs are not *the only* thing that people do, so i wouldn't use that has the only metric before moving a mod to inactive especially if they are playing. But perhaps it would give a better picture of activity and allow for some additional conversation from the heads to see if there is additional training required.

[c45y]

A mod who logs in and completes one modreq a month is still contributing, I see no reason to have requirements other than playing the game and completing some amount of requests.

There is no repercussion of having "too many" mods, so long as they are all playing for a reasonable length of time, completing X modreqs isn't a great way to measure productivity. Most of my modreq numbers are for water flowing, while someone who handles a lot of protection requests may have lower numbers, they are providing the more valuable service

A few hours a week for 2 weeks in a row would be sufficient to be "active", I know I tend to operate in little bursts of activity then lag for a while

Keep in mind we are currently down a server, there will be staff who don't enjoy playing on P or C so they will be showing signs of inactivity. However on Survival server return I would hope a lot of them return as well, they will be needed

[Mrloud15]

I'm really against using any kind of modreq count to see if someone is active because it's actually pretty difficult to claim any modreqs especially during peak hours.

 

One thing that I think could be used to see if someone is active would be to use the last time someone logged into the forums since that's where most of the staff discussion goes on. I think an active staff member should be at least aware of the discussions going on even if they don't have anything to contribute to whatever the current discussions are.

[MasterCommaThe]

One area I doubt get's counted in "activity" is new rev and event server development, of which I've spent some significant time in the past. While generally my modreq count is sufficient to justify being active, when I have limited time, I often have devoted myself to server development rather than sitting on C and waiting for modreqs.

Furthermore I fully agree with c45y. There is little to no reason to "clean up" staff as frequently or with the restrictive criteria that are currently being used. 

I am further in agreement with Mrloud15. The forums are where rule and policy changes are communicated to current staff, keeping up on rule changes is the primary reason we require inactive mods to go through training when they return, and thus I feel forum usage is probably the best determination of a moderator's status as a staff member who should be allowed to act on our servers however little time they have to play the actual game.

[nealsmith]

ok, old man, slow typer here.  often, while playing I see a modreq come in.  by the time I get to Mod mode, someone has it.  my best chance honestly is when there are multiple reqs in queue.  my filled req numbers are then low as compared to others.  if that means I'm part of a house cleaning, so be it.  metrics are needed for tracking, I understand.  however it also seems to build a class stacking of whom can do the most.  I do not like that. 

 

also, of note.  I get a number of "drive by questions" that can not be tracked, as we all do. I feel that this is as important if not more so in day to day activity.

 

my 2 cents and ten minutes of typing....

[Silversunset01]

Honestly I think additional metrics may be needed to make sure people aren't overworking or pointing out areas where additional training may be needed.

It doesn't sound like the intent is to use them as part of a blind wiping-of-permissions, but more to make sure everyone is contributing as they are able and not letting things sit until a handful of more experienced people are online.

[Narissis]

I know in my case I've been hesitant to take modreqs that I'm unclear about how to do, but I think the only way to git gud is to bite the bullet and learn by doing!

 

...I still won't forgive Redwall for that one CARBON protection with 9 regions, though. :P

[Silversunset01]

...I still won't forgive Redwall for that one CARBON protection with 9 regions, though. :P

You missed the fun with old carbon. No one is more excited about the new rail system than myself or troop I'm sure ;)

[redwall_hp]

I know in my case I've been hesitant to take modreqs that I'm unclear about how to do, but I think the only way to git gud is to bite the bullet and learn by doing!

 

...I still won't forgive Redwall for that one CARBON protection with 9 regions, though. :P

 

Heh. I may have to see about writing a CommandHelper script to make that sort of thing easier sometime, so you can set a region name pattern and have it "stick" while you add subsequent ones, and have it automatically set their parent.

 

Something like "/multiregion name region_name" and then "/multiregion add" to create subsequent regions named "region_name_2," etc with them all being made a parent of the original region_name.

[Narissis]

Heh. I may have to see about writing a CommandHelper script to make that sort of thing easier sometime, so you can set a region name pattern and have it "stick" while you add subsequent ones, and have it automatically set their parent.

 

Something like "/multiregion name region_name" and then "/multiregion add" to create subsequent regions named "region_name_2," etc with them all being made a parent of the original region_name.

 

This would be fantastic for those oddly-shaped regions.

 

I know I'm going to have a TRAVEL prot request coming up that will be quite an ordeal. >_>

[Guest Former Staff]

Looking back over the replies so far, seems we're getting caught up on measuring modreqs. Personally, I would prefer to see average modreq count for one server counted. These numbers are extremely low when considered over a four week period (for example, during the November clearup, these were 4 modreqs on creative or 15 modreqs on pve). However, from not only this discussion but from the previous one which we had on defining activity, this is not something that people want to see implemented for several reasons.

 

Something we could look into, as 30% of moderators on the last staff clearup had no noticable contributions (no modreqs, not participating on the forums), would be to follow up with those individuals privately to see if people need additional training, are too busy to moderate and just generally see how they are doing. How would you feel about us taking that approach?

 

I'm very wary that we ask returning staff to meet a certain amount of activity over a period of four weeks, only to see some of us not meeting that standard and not contributing.

[MasterCommaThe]

I think most staff when voting on new mods primarily consider whether a player can be trusted to obey and enforce the rules we've established for the server, and act maturely when doing so. Is it really critical how "active" each of our staff is, as long as they are all reasonably cognizant of the specific rules we enforce (which don't change nearly as frequently as when the server started)?