Do we need more staff?

[Myrtonos]

As of the time of writing, there is one staff online, [b]gonzerd[/b] (by the way, tagging doesn't work when the staff name is in bold). But immediately before, there were none. Is there (nearly) always at least one staff online, and if not, do we need more?

I did send him a private message.

 

[Sportster]

I have a feeling gonzerd's computer is always logged on to AC whether or not he's present, as I've seen him listed at all hours of the day and night. He's like "The Ten," he's always watching but you never know when.

 

[King_Oni]

The more captains on a ship, the messier it gets

Why does staff need to be around all the time? Do you feel the need that the forum needs to be policed 24/7?

Just a little reminder; none of us of the AC staff get paid or anything for it. We all volunteer and with many having other responsibilities (work, family, school, etc.) we can't really do it, nor do I think we should schedule when someone has to be around like a shiftroster (I, for one, would opt out pretty fast if I was told I have to be online between X and Y daily, for example).

The question is; what exactly is it to you to ask for more staff?

I recall a period where I was running this forum with just one other moderator 2 years or so back (before Brent took over even). And while some issues took a bit longer to get fixed, it ran decent enough without many issues. More isn't always better.

For a bit of insight on how staff works; we do have our own subforum and a lot of issues get discussed there; but since we have 8 staffers, it takes a while for everyone to chip in to some degree and have a dialogue. I reckon, having more staffers, just increases how long certain issues get looked into.

 

[Myrtonos]

I have a feeling gonzerd's computer is always logged on to AC whether or not he's present, as I've seen him listed at all hours of the day and night. He's like "The Ten," he's always watching but you never know when.

That could be misleading.

The more captains on a ship, the messier it gets

Only one captain per ship on duty at any time. It gets messier if more than one captain is on duty at the same time.

Why does staff need to be around all the time? Do you feel the need that the forum needs to be policed 24/7?

Sometimes there is political discussion in the chatroom, which is apparently not allowed here except in relation to A.S.D. Also, I would think any online community is best policed if there is always at least one doing so at any given time. We only seem to have one staff [B]Sass[/B] (note: staff name in bold) who lives in my time zone or anywhere close to it, and she isn't online that often.

Just a little reminder; none of us of the AC staff get paid or anything for it. We all volunteer and with many having other responsibilities (work, family, school, etc.) we can't really do it, nor do I think we should schedule when someone has to be around like a shiftroster (I, for one, would opt out pretty fast if I was told I have to be online between X and Y daily, for example).

The question is; what exactly is it to you to ask for more staff?

If there are long periods where no staff are around, how can there be enough?!? You may all volunteer and have other responsibilities, but you surely don't all have those responsibilities at the same time.

For a bit of insight on how staff works; we do have our own subforum and a lot of issues get discussed there; but since we have 8 staffers, it takes a while for everyone to chip in to some degree and have a dialogue. I reckon, having more staffers, just increases how long certain issues get looked into.

If all 8 staff members are, say, at school or work at the same time, surely you do need more. If at least one out of 8 staffers were online at any given time, this forum would not need more. But that seems to not be the case.

I am not saying you should schedule when someone has to be around. But what I am saying is that 8 staff might not be enough if there often isn't at least one around at any given time.

 

[King_Oni]

Only one captain per ship on duty at any time. It gets messier if more than one captain is on duty at the same time.



Sometimes there is political discussion in the chatroom, which is apparently not allowed here except in relation to A.S.D. Also, I would think any online community is best policed if there is always at least one doing so at any given time. We only seem to have one staff [B]Sass[/B] (note: staff name in bold) who lives in my time zone or anywhere close to it, and she isn't online that often.



If there are long periods where no staff, how can there be enough?!? You may all volunteer and have other responsibilities, but you surely don't all have those responsibilities at the same time.



If all 8 staff members are, say, at school or work at the same time, surely you do need more. If at least one out of 8 staffers were online at any given time, this forum would not need more. But that seems to not be the case.

I'm quite sure if I/we put up these kind of "requirements" that we have to plan together when someone is on, the forum would be even less moderated, since people wouldn't be that interested in this. As it is, we don't feel the urge to make a schedule and demand staff to be around X hours daily; as I said, the moment that becomes a thing, I'm out, and I'm sure at least half of the staff will be as well (since they either can't fit it into their schedule or simply don't want that obligation).

As for people in your timezone; that's always an issue. A while ago we had 3 people from the Australia/New zealand area on staff, 2 from Western Europe and 1 from the US... it's not always fairly distributed.

And as for policing the forum; we get to it when we're on and if something is reported (and take action when needed). It sounds more like you (and perhaps some others) expect us to protect you from seeing threads that are not in compliance with the rules, just for the sake of pointing out "that's against the rules". If something bothers you, or anyone, so much, feel free to report the thread so we can check it out and see what's up with it. That's what the report button is for.

Of course we don't have these responsibilities at the same time; and perhaps I'm reading a bit too much into it, but to me it sounds we should be around and available when we don't have anything "important" to do in our lives. As said, we do not have a mandatory amount of time someone has to be on, and as such, it happens some staffers aren't on for the entire day. Is the forum suffering that much from someone not being around? Is AC such a vile and horrible place because of it? I've seen places way, way worse and they're still running, so I do fail to see the issue.

How about this little thing to think about; in an ideal situation, we wouldn't need staff, except for a few technical issues. Most of us here on the forum are adults and I would hope we can settle things like adults, even if we're on the internet, where some rather want to act like 13 year olds who are unattended. Clearly, staff is around to give those 13 year olds a slap on the wrist, but even that shouldn't be. Moderators and admins should be a last ditch effort when something goes really wrong.

Otherwise; here's a suggestion... and I made it once before for one reason or another. Imagine, not a single post goes through and everything will be proofread and edited in accordance to guidelines. Chances are it'll take about 2 weeks to process your post. That way, we can keep tabs on what gets posted. It also creates a tiny policestate where people would rather get away from. It makes it a safe environment and everything gets moderated accordingly. It also makes the forum sluggish and impractical and a less fun place.

Lastly; if all 8 of us have other things to take care of we need more. So, what if we add 4 more and they're also in school? See what I'm getting at. Just because we can't possibly be all busy with something else, it means we must be here and sit around until someone posts the F word.

I drop by a few times a day, check reported posts, clear up any new members caught by the spam filter, stuff like that. That's also part of being staff here.

Still, the question stands; what is it to you to ask for more staff? I suppose asking you if you feel the forum is understaffed, will be met with a resounding yes, but I can't really find a valid reason thus far why that claim holds any ground in regards to being a problem.

Lastly; and while this is surely not the popular opinion; but alas, I'm known for sometimes saying things that aren't popular opinion. This is the internet where you can come and go as you please. Don't like a forum and their rules and policies, feel free to find some other forum. Or, start your own and see how rules, policy and staffing works for you there. Before you cry outrage; No I'm not saying you should pack your stuff and get out, as we, as staff, value your input here and asking about staff, but I do like to point out that websites are run one way or another and you're free to choose and look elsewhere if it would bother you greatly how their policy works.

 

[Myrtonos]

I'm quite sure if I/we put up these kind of "requirements" that we have to plan together when someone is on, the forum would be even less moderated, since people wouldn't be that interested in this. As it is, we don't feel the urge to make a schedule and demand staff to be around X hours daily; as I said, the moment that becomes a thing, I'm out, and I'm sure at least half of the staff will be as well (since they either can't fit it into their schedule or simply don't want that obligation).

I did not say you have to plan together. It's not a demand, I'm just saying it seems to be too common to have periods where the forum is understaffed.

As for people in your timezone; that's always an issue. A while ago we had 3 people from the Australia/New zealand area on staff, 2 from Western Europe and 1 from the US... it's not always fairly distributed.

This seems to be the major factor.

Of course we don't have these responsibilities at the same time; and perhaps I'm reading a bit too much into it, but to me it sounds we should be around and available when we don't have anything "important" to do in our lives. As said, we do not have a mandatory amount of time someone has to be on, and as such, it happens some staffers aren't on for the entire day. Is the forum suffering that much from someone not being around? Is AC such a vile and horrible place because of it? I've seen places way, way worse and they're still running, so I do fail to see the issue.

Yes, some staffers might not be on for an entire day, but hopefully not on the same day.

How about this little thing to think about; in an ideal situation, we wouldn't need staff, except for a few technical issues. Most of us here on the forum are adults and I would hope we can settle things like adults, even if we're on the internet, where some rather want to act like 13 year olds who are unattended. Clearly, staff is around to give those 13 year olds a slap on the wrist, but even that shouldn't be. Moderators and admins should be a last ditch effort when something goes really wrong.

No, everybody needs to follow one set of rules or procedures to help settle things like this. As long as you have rules and those rules are correct, they need to be enforced to apply. If there is a problem with the rules, get them changed.

Furthermore not all adults are equal in this way, for example, some give more detailed responses than others, some are more decisive than others.

Lastly; if all 8 of us have other things to take care of we need more. So, what if we add 4 more and they're also in school? See what I'm getting at. Just because we can't possibly be all busy with something else, it means we must be here and sit around until someone posts the F word.

If those four more are also in school or at work at the same time, they wouldn't be good candidates for additional staff, better candidates would be ones who have those duties at different times.

I drop by a few times a day, check reported posts, clear up any new members caught by the spam filter, stuff like that. That's also part of being staff here.

Remember, you live in the Netherlands, so if a staff member here in Australasia were to do the same thing as you, they would most certainly do it during your night.

Still, the question stands; what is it to you to ask for more staff? I suppose asking you if you feel the forum is understaffed, will be met with a resounding yes, but I can't really find a valid reason thus far why that claim holds any ground in regards to being a problem.

No, the forum isn't outright understaffed, but there are times when it is.

Lastly; and while this is surely not the popular opinion; but alas, I'm known for sometimes saying things that aren't popular opinion. This is the internet where you can come and go as you please. Don't like a forum and their rules and policies, feel free to find some other forum. Or, start your own and see how rules, policy and staffing works for you there. Before you cry outrage; No I'm not saying you should pack your stuff and get out, as we, as staff, value your input here and asking about staff, but I do like to point out that websites are run one way or another and you're free to choose and look elsewhere if it would bother you greatly how their policy works.

It's not a case of disliking our rules or policies, it's a case of the site being understaffed at certain times. Fact is that most staff here live in the U.S.A (where it's basically Friday afternoon when it's Saturday morning here) and so the forum is likely to be understaffed when it is daytime on the other side of the world.

 

[King_Oni]

It seems like we're going around in circles here and the burning question is being avoided alltogether. Thus far I haven't heard any argument why it's so important that staff needs to be around. Without any of us policing the forum or being present 24 hours a day (or a spread as such) the forum still runs with minor incidents.

As for the spread of staff, granted, only one if from the Australasia area, we have 3 from Europe, 4 from the US.. .well, and one from the Australasia region. Yes, half of them are from the US, which still isn't as bad. Furthermore, there's an assumption everyone has regular day/night cycles.

I can see the point made that someone might not be a good candidate, but to be honest, last time we were looking for staff, we pretty much looked around for people that are good additions to the team first and foremost. If we have to use criteria on how they can spend their time here among other things, we would end up perpetually understaffed, since having time on your hands to be a staffer does not equal being suitable for the team.

What's worth noting, if you keep going on about "these are the rules and they need to be enforced correctly" is the following; https://www.aspiescentral.com/threads/general-rules-guidelines.3/ "Rules and guidelines" and as such we try to moderate fairly (and I'm sure some will argue it's not fairly moderated)... it also means, that we will step in if things go out of hand, but we try to treat it more like guidelines to keep it civil. Yes, we will use the rules to close threads and if needed, ban people, but it's not that black and white. And by the way you're going on about it, you seem more like someone who wants black and white rules with no leeway... while in fact being a bit more flexible about plenty of things is what makes this forum enjoyable for many people.

So, with this said, I'm going to ask it one more time. If there's no solid argument brought up, this topic will close.

What is it to you that there's no staff around at any given moment you're on this forum?

That's essentially what I filter out of all these posts between you and me now; you complain about the forum being understaffed, yet you haven't given a single proper argument why we should babysit this forum on a constant basis.

Is it the rules? And seeing some people post things that are against the rules? How about you just make sure you don't break them yourself, so you're sure you don't get into trouble. If you already cringe at seeing someone post something against the rules, at least you're aware it's an issue, so if you make sure you don't repeat it, you're good to go.

I still stand by my closing statement above; don't like the policy, go look elsewhere. I'm not going to name names, but from the other autism forums, there have been a few loaded with more drama and people spitting vitriol than here.

So, what's the one argument why you need staff to be around at all times?

 

[Sportster]

I agree with King!!! The moderators do a phenomenal job of keeping things running smoothly here. This is a free service, so we shouldn't expect the same protection or privileges as though it was something we pay for. I'm quite pleased with the way the site is run and see no need for more staff. When I've had problems in the past, I've let a moderator know and it was handled accordingly. You don't find the drama and mob mentality here that is on another website.

 

[Myrtonos]

It seems like we're going around in circles here and the burning question is being avoided alltogether. Thus far I haven't heard any argument why it's so important that staff needs to be around. Without any of us policing the forum or being present 24 hours a day (or a spread as such) the forum still runs with minor incidents.

I thought it would just make sense for staff to be around. For rules to apply 24 hours a day, they need to be enforced 24 hours a day. So you admit there are incidents. If there there is always at least one staff online at any given time, they are more likely be responded to promptly. If there is no staff online at a given time, they cannot. There shouldn't be an excuse for having long periods without moderation.

As for the spread of staff, granted, only one if from the Australasia area, we have 3 from Europe, 4 from the US.. .well, and one from the Australasia region. Yes, half of them are from the US, which still isn't as bad. Furthermore, there's an assumption everyone has regular day/night cycles.

Here's a thought, how about nominating one other European member for staffership? Actually I can allow for the fact that not everyone has regular daily cycles. If there are some whole days in Europe where none of the European staff are online at any time, there are likely be some European members who are still online on those days, if one of them is prepared to staff the forum, let them do so.

I can see the point made that someone might not be a good candidate, but to be honest, last time we were looking for staff, we pretty much looked around for people that are good additions to the team first and foremost. If we have to use criteria on how they can spend their time here among other things, we would end up perpetually understaffed, since having time on your hands to be a staffer does not equal being suitable for the team.

But you don't necessarily have to explicitly use that criteria. Every day I have been in the chat room, there have been a few Australasians online, and I'm sure that some poster in Australasia other than Sass might well be a good candidate.

What's worth noting, if you keep going on about "these are the rules and they need to be enforced correctly" is the following; https://www.aspiescentral.com/threads/general-rules-guidelines.3/ "Rules and guidelines" and as such we try to moderate fairly (and I'm sure some will argue it's not fairly moderated)... it also means, that we will step in if things go out of hand, but we try to treat it more like guidelines to keep it civil. Yes, we will use the rules to close threads and if needed, ban people, but it's not that black and white. And by the way you're going on about it, you seem more like someone who wants black and white rules with no leeway... while in fact being a bit more flexible about plenty of things is what makes this forum enjoyable for many people.

So, with this said, I'm going to ask it one more time. If there's no solid argument brought up, this topic will close.

What is it to you that there's no staff around at any given moment you're on this forum?

That's essentially what I filter out of all these posts between you and me now; you complain about the forum being understaffed, yet you haven't given a single proper argument why we should babysit this forum on a constant basis.

Is it the rules? And seeing some people post things that are against the rules? How about you just make sure you don't break them yourself, so you're sure you don't get into trouble. If you already cringe at seeing someone post something against the rules, at least you're aware it's an issue, so if you make sure you don't repeat it, you're good to go.

I still stand by my closing statement above; don't like the policy, go look elsewhere. I'm not going to name names, but from the other autism forums, there have been a few loaded with more drama and people spitting vitriol than here.

So, what's the one argument why you need staff to be around at all times?[/QUOTE]

I agree with King!!! The moderators do a phenomenal job of keeping things running smoothly here. This is a free service, so we shouldn't expect the same protection or privileges as though it was something we pay for. I'm quite pleased with the way the site is run and see no need for more staff. When I've had problems in the past, I've let a moderator know and it was handled accordingly. You don't find the drama and mob mentality here that is on another website.

It seems like we're going around in circles here and the burning question is being avoided alltogether. Thus far I haven't heard any argument why it's so important that staff needs to be around. Without any of us policing the forum or being present 24 hours a day (or a spread as such) the forum still runs with minor incidents.

As for the spread of staff, granted, only one if from the Australasia area, we have 3 from Europe, 4 from the US.. .well, and one from the Australasia region. Yes, half of them are from the US, which still isn't as bad. Furthermore, there's an assumption everyone has regular day/night cycles.

I can see the point made that someone might not be a good candidate, but to be honest, last time we were looking for staff, we pretty much looked around for people that are good additions to the team first and foremost. If we have to use criteria on how they can spend their time here among other things, we would end up perpetually understaffed, since having time on your hands to be a staffer does not equal being suitable for the team.

What's worth noting, if you keep going on about "these are the rules and they need to be enforced correctly" is the following; https://www.aspiescentral.com/threads/general-rules-guidelines.3/ "Rules and guidelines" and as such we try to moderate fairly (and I'm sure some will argue it's not fairly moderated)... it also means, that we will step in if things go out of hand, but we try to treat it more like guidelines to keep it civil. Yes, we will use the rules to close threads and if needed, ban people, but it's not that black and white. And by the way you're going on about it, you seem more like someone who wants black and white rules with no leeway... while in fact being a bit more flexible about plenty of things is what makes this forum enjoyable for many people.

Well, if there is going to be leeway, it would be to change the rules if there are problems with them. Things could go out of hand at any time, and it is preferable for a moderator to be available at that time.

So, with this said, I'm going to ask it one more time. If there's no solid argument brought up, this topic will close.

There is indeed a solid argument. You haven't given a solid argument against adding more staff given the long periods when none of the current staff are online.

What is it to you that there's no staff around at any given moment you're on this forum?

I have given an example, last night there was a discussion in that chatroom than looked political, and political discussion is not allowed on this site unless it has to with with the autism spectrum.

That's essentially what I filter out of all these posts between you and me now; you complain about the forum being understaffed, yet you haven't given a single proper argument why we should babysit this forum on a constant basis.

Suppose the forum were never staffed, or not staffed very often, can you see a problem with that?

Is it the rules? And seeing some people post things that are against the rules? How about you just make sure you don't break them yourself, so you're sure you don't get into trouble. If you already cringe at seeing someone post something against the rules, at least you're aware it's an issue, so if you make sure you don't repeat it, you're good to go.

Why are you telling me to do them? I am not breaking them here.

I still stand by my closing statement above; don't like the policy, go look elsewhere. I'm not going to name names, but from the other autism forums, there have been a few loaded with more drama and people spitting vitriol than here

And why do you stand by it if I told you that it's not about suggesting any policy change here?

So, what's the one argument why you need staff to be around at all times?

If there doesn't how often does a staff member need to be around at a minimum? Having staff online as often as you can manage is the best in order to allow for what's possible. Just trusting them to settle things like adults is not a rigorous argument against doing your best to have at least one staff online as often as possible.

 

[Myrtonos]

I agree with King!!! The moderators do a phenomenal job of keeping things running smoothly here. This is a free service, so we shouldn't expect the same protection or privileges as though it was something we pay for. I'm quite pleased with the way the site is run and see no need for more staff. When I've had problems in the past, I've let a moderator know and it was handled accordingly. You don't find the drama and mob mentality here that is on another website.

Yes, they do a good job, but only at times when there is at least one online. This may be a free service, but many might still not want, say, the site owner to have an excuse for not doing their best at staffing the site. If you have a problem and a moderator is online, it may well be handled promptly. If not, you have to wait sometime.

Let me rephrased what I am saying. Not the the rules should officially require at least one staff to be online at any given time, but that there should preferably be at least one staff member online as often as the community can manage.

 

[zurb]

Reading through this thread, the issue seems to me to be one of idealism, not that there is an actual problem to correct.
In my experience, issues are infrequent, and generally all I see is that something happened while I was asleep. By the time I get on the forum, the mods have done all that needs doing.

 

[King_Oni]

Reading through this thread, the issue seems to me to be one of idealism, not that there is an actual problem to correct.
In my experience, issues are infrequent, and generally all I see is that something happened while I was asleep. By the time I get on the forum, the mods have done all that needs doing.

This ^

There's no real issue at hand, but merely something someone thinks is ideal... yet in that same ideal world, everyone would behave and staff wouldn't even be needed.

I would say, when this forum is going to hell, get back to us about staff and how we're not doing a job. You know, when actually issues come up. Being an idealist is fine and bringing it up, but this is just making issues where there are none.

And with that, I'll close this one. Don't get me wrong, it's good to have a little dialogue going and hear what peoples opinions are, but as it is now, we're not going to change it, purely for idealistic reasons by one or a handful of members.