There has been a lot of trouble and arguing the past few weeks and I've noticed a great deal of it has been caused by former staff, or more accurately, recently former staff telling the current staff what needs to be done. This might just be me but I'm of the opinion that you've left the staff for a good reason. That's perfectly fine and dandy. What the problem I see is that you seem to still feel like the site is still your responsibility to manage in some way, a lot of which is in regards to the people running the site. That's not so hunky dory to me. You know that I spent a great deal of time working on the site, talking and working and spending time, money and effort in making it better for everyone. When the time came where I couldn't do that anymore I decided that it's best I leave it behind and focus on the other parts of my life I had time for. I still talked with friends and acted as a normal user. What I didn't do is keep working on improving the site and making it better. That wasn't my responsibility any more. I had no obligation to be more than a rule following member and that's what I did. No big essays on who should be staff, no big posts criticizing the people I had worked with. I just tried to enjoy the site and let those who were in charge do what I've left them to do. So I carry on to my point. If you have just left staff, you have openly admitted and agreed that you don't have a desire to work on the site anymore, for whatever reason. The running of the site is not your job. You forfeit your power to decide what should and shouldn't be changed. At most you can make a suggestion or something for the staff to think about. What gives you the right to suddenly cause a whole bunch of arguing and drama amongst the users and staff about things you've already decided you couldn't change as a staff member? Why would you, a user, get more say because you decided to quit what you think is a failing system? Because of this, I've decided to propose a simple rule: If you have left the staff of your own accord, you have forfeited your right to (for lack of a better phrase) have a major complaint against the staff and/or the site. Even more so if your reason for leaving was the other staff itself. Clearly you thought that something wasn't working out while you were in the staff so there shouldn't be any reason why you leaving the staff has suddenly given it the magic ability to fix what issue you saw. Just leave the staff to do the job you've decided to quit and don't complain when you're not there to stop them. In other words, go big or go home.
TL;DR, in the 1st person of Foxy: I'm sick of retired staff still acting as if they are staff. I still make suggestions and stuff, but I don't try and take the roll of staff. If you (retired staff) had stepped down, you have agreed to not work on the site anymore. Quit making drama on stuff that you didn't fix as staff. Leave the staff to do their job that you quit.
Here is why I think this happens. I think that they are trying to prove just how much they care. They quit the staff because it was the others staffs fault nothing ever got done. So they come out to the forum to prove it by making a big fuss. Of course I don't think they care as much as they let on. If they did would they not just do this while on the staff. I do agree with the forfeit of them to come out and make a Huss about the staff they just left. Especially since they usually seem have done the same thing they are complaining about.
Mike resigned months ago and he's still in the staff room doing things that aren't his responsability anymore simply because Tyro needs help. I believe i said this before. Former staff, especially the ones who left more recently, have a greater understanding of what's going on behind the scenes. And if they left for a reason, i'd say they have an even greater understanding than those still on staff. So why shouldn't i be allowed to help if i feel like it? The difference now is it's not a responsability anymore. It saves me from the stress that came with the staff job. I'd say the exact opposite. If you left for a good reason, you should be encouraged to complain so they can figure out what's wrong and what needs to be done. Former staff members are in the best possible position to post complaints. Tyro actually encourages it. (in my case at least)
A question if I may. If they care so much about all the goings on, why leave? Why should leaving make you complain about issues they were just part of. What logic is there behind "I'm so fed up with the staff I better quit and then make a thread complaining about things". Why not make a complaint when they are staff. Seems more logical to me. As for mike in the staff room, I thought that was a privilege of being staff. That even if you quit you get to stay in the rooms. Unless I'm mistaken, am I?
This has to be the only time I've outright disagreed with Foxy. If I leave staff because I can't stand how it works and can't change it from the inside because I'll just be fired anyways if I want to change it on the outside, I should have every right to quit and bring up my own problems and concerns with the staff, in any manner I can, within reason. That's like saying if you retire/quit from a workplace that you can't criticize their policies or staff members after the fact. The whole point is that you can. Keep in mind you left in a time where things looked pretty decent. This is a time where things are far from it and action has to be taken on both fronts, regardless of the source. The purpose of the staff is, quite literally, to protect and serve. It seems many of the staff have forgotten this simple creed. That is why we act when we retire/quit.
Simple. I left for more reasons than just the ones i'm complaining about. Mike is the only exception of a resigned staff member being allowed to stay in the actual staff room on skype. Aside from that, both Mike and Grey still have access to the staff forums.
So why not have stayed staff and done this exact same thing. Still makes no sense. If you really cared I'd assumed you have stayed with it this time. This was your second time as a staff member, right? Well that I don't agree with. If mike would like to be in the staff room then be a staff member. As for both having access to the staff forum, may I inquire as to why they get to access them. Then it's kind of the staff forum plus two other guys. If they aren't staff they shouldn't be allowed in staff areas. That seems simple to me.
This can be true, but in Rarit's case and my case, as well as Harley's case, this is false. We still have a desire to work on (and protect) the site, but we no longer have that option because we were tired of the constant bias, laziness of the staff, and overall negative connotation to said staff. Why stress ourselves out needlessly working with people whom do not wish to work with us? That doesn't make our care of the site go away at all. If anything it just makes us even more determined to fight for the changes we think need to happen. Again, this is false. We, as users, have just as much right to decide what happens to us as much as anyone else. If we don't like a change (Or want a change) you can bet that we'll be vocal about it. What gives staff the right to constantly ignore other staff and continue to be lazy after multiple attempts to stop? What gives staff the right to decide our fates? Nothing. Again, I'll direct you to my previous point. It is impossible to stop them alone. It seems that the staff only paid attention to what I said about them when I made a little controversial post (Which is hidden from public eyes) instead of when I was on staff. This alone invalidates the clause that being a user does not give you any more say. It seems the staff only paid attention to their problems when Rarit left and started taking names. It only seems the staff paid attention to ANYTHING when they are cast in a negative light. This needs to change. Staff needs to change. Regardless of who says it, everyone should have the right to give criticism. Especially if that person is an ex-staff member. Especially if that person left because of the staff. And to be honest, the only reason the site is still here now is because of Mike, and a couple other staff members.
As Saikyo said, Mike is pretty much the only reason the site is still standing and i welcome every second he spends in there. As for Grey, i think his access to the staff forums can't be taken away because he's the site's founder. He doesn't speak up much anyway last time i checked.
Man, talk about a VIP club. If mike gonna do tech work give him some tech type staff title thing. Doesn't do staff thing other then tech stuff, like Ghan. Even though I haven't a clue what he does. As for grey, eh. I see the point because he was the founder, but he isnt staff anymore, so I don't see why he gets access. It's like a weird seesaw thing to me.
I'm saying that if he's the physical creator of the site, he'll always have access to everything. I don't think it can be removed even if he wanted to. That's why i think he still has access though. Wouldn't know why else he'd still be around.
I stuck around with the staff because it's easier for me to discuss with them and work along with Tyro as he is new to vBulletin and I have better experience to help him in that regard. It's not a VIP club as I still pull my own weight, even if behind the scenes. As for an official title, that's not really up to me, nor do I see why that exactly matters. Not really, he relinquished just about all his power after he stepped down. He's pretty much a normal member but can see what staff does. I think that's reasonable enough since he was a founder.
I only say VIP club because its the staff room for staff, which you aren't, but you still do staff like things. Obviously you are helping tyro which is great and all. It's just like you're doing staff work but not staff. It's just eh. It's not terribly bad or whatever. I just find it easier to just type everything I think as I think it instead of picking bits and pieces.
Well it's mostly that the site doesn't report I'm "staff". What happened was that after my decision of choosing to step down from admin I asked the team if they would be ok with if I "demote" myself essentially and be an advisor or helper if you will. I suppose it wouldn't be an issue for an admin to throw me on the page as a helper or whatever.
I guess it would demystify a few things. Although, the name for the new title would be interesting. Advisor? Vizier? Everypony's Personal Obi-Wan Kenobi? I'll have a think.
Perhaps I don't see it from your point of view but this is how it was for me; I was part of the staff, which meant that regardless of the people I worked with, while I still had the desire to improve something I would work with the staff to do it. It wasn't always easy and I often had to do the unpopular thing, but as long as I was staff and desired to help, I did everything I could because I knew that if I left the staff I wouldn't be able to. If you still have the desire to help the site, why put yourself in a position where you can do less for it? There is a difference between making a change because the users want something and deciding the direction the site heads towards. Imagine this site is like a country. The people can vote and ask for things for the government to do but at the end of the day it's the governments choice. Leaving the staff is like stepping down from congress and still trying to pass bills. Why should you get that special privilege? Ok, let's put this in perspective. Who's opinion would you listen to more, the calm and rational politician or the guy holding signs that corporations are evil while yelling into a megaphone? Because sometimes this is what the staff rooms ends up becoming and you can't deny that you were the guy with the megaphone plenty of times. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be heard, but it's how you do so which determines how effective you are. While I can respect that your wish to make the site better is very passionate if you go about it the wrong way you just end up hurting yourself far more than achieving something good. If the staff made a big deal of any time they are praised then they'd seem like egotistical dicks. The idea of 'staff awards' or something similar has been shot down many times because it's the general consensus it'd make the staff look like that'd look bad on them for rewarding themselves for whatever they want. On the other hand when the staff are criticized they look at it and want to work on it so they do make an effort to attend to it because being criticized means there is something they are doing which upsets someone and they want to change that. What makes things a big deal are these 'controversial posts' because they are rarely made of solid criticism, rather they are more often than not a giant post which can be summed up in "I AM UPSET FOR THIS REASON AND I AM GOING TO VEIL A WALL OF INSULTS UNDER A PREMISE OF CRITICISM SO IT CANNOT BE REASONABLY CHALLENGED". Whether the intention is good or not, 9 time outs of 10 these posts only cause to anger and offend the staff because of the way they are presented and usually cause more members of the forum to follow suit. Can you honestly give any example of when something good has come out of these posts or when these posts have been made by members that don't have some kind of score to settle? You are right to say it is impossible to stop them alone, but can you honestly say a staff member who has quit for whatever reason has a better position to change something than someone in the staff? By all means make your complaints heard but is it really the right thing for you to cause such drama the staff actively try and prevent just to make a point? Do the ends justify the means if you lose more than you gain? There is a major fundamental difference between offering criticism and making huge complaints. This is not criticism. From what I've heard the one Ramza posted in the private site discussion is definitely not criticism. What they are is essentially saying you don't like how things are done and complaining it should be different. That would offend most people and that is essentially why those things tend to get ignored. If you want something to happen it needs to be presented in a way that'll get people to listen favourably to it. ANY staff should know that anyone who caused problems was widely regarded as someone that wasn't taken too seriously, so why should former staff get special permission to do so? You may have left for a reason, but if that reason is the staff itself, isn't it rather counter-intuitive to try and tell them to change AFTER leaving the staff? To use your example, if you leave the staff of a workplace and complain about its staff and policies, what reason do they have to listen specifically to you? So let me be clear: If you have recently left the staff, you have forfeited your right to COMPLAIN about how things are run. You had your chance and have decided it wasn't possible. Let it go and try to enjoy yourself rather than causing issues for the staff you left behind.
