Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-8846246-20160419193334/@comment-9026519-20160419231538

''Many of our spots are empty, but we aren't understaffed. If people wanted to help run chat, instead of trying to get us to have more spots in Chat Mods, perhaps the people who want to be Chat Mod should consider Discussion Mod instead. ''

If we're not understaffed, and our current staff count is about half of our max, why do we need even more positions instead of removing some? :^)

Then why are things not getting done? Why are rules not being enforced? If we're not understaffed, then, before you start making new staff posotions, try making sure the ones you have filled are doing what they're supposed too. I'm not blaming staff for this, I'm just saying, if you claim we aren't understaffed, then 1) why do we need more positions (especially when w and 2) why are things still not getting done?

"'What happens if lower positions get clogged and no one in them wants to move up?'

''Does that matter? Not really, matters a little. But say all the chat mods were full, like they are now, the chat would have all the people it needs with those 4 and any in higher ranks. The Helpers is supposed to help with this by offering a quicker fill anytime someone ranks up out of Rollback or Chat Mod. So the rank would almost always be full."''

So you're telling me, if there are no discussion mods and all our current chat mods don't want to move up, it doesn't matter? Then what's the point of having Discussion mods rather than allowing chat mods to go directly to being admin? It is a problem that needs to be solved because, if there are no discussion mods and chat mods aren't/don't want to be ranked up, there will be no help from discussion mods.

"'How long will we be understaffed?'

''No-one knows that, but we aren't really understaffed. 13/25 spots are currently filled. With this it would be 13/33. Either way, we do and would have enough spots filled. Many large wikia's, such as the FNAF wikia have less staff than us with 4 and they don't seem to be having too many problems with staff. In-fact with only 3 the canon wiki works fine and it has more people. I wouldn't even consider that wiki understaffed."''

Again, if we're not understaffed and only 13/25 positions are filled, why do we need 33 positions? It doesn't make sense.

"'What if someone in a position leaves or is demoted? How long will it take to replace them?'

''That's simple, you just wait until someone applies. If it's a helper, then you wait for a normal user. If it's a chat mod you'd wait for a helper."''

You make it sound like someone will apply. Chances are they won't. I mean, as it is, people aren't applying very often anyways.

"'To put this into simpler terms, if we can't fill our current staff positions, what's the point in adding more as well as making them harder to get into?'

''A full staff isn't as important as a qualified staff. Making it harder is a step towards making sure staff is more qualified."''

Doesn't a larger staff end up getting to lax because they think someone else will do it? I mean, as is, our staff is pretty lax (which isn't a bad thing unless it gets too lax) and we're only about 50% full. So what happens when we not only reach our current max of 25, but enlarge said max to 33? I don't think it'll work out too well.

"'If people aren't scared or turned away from applying, then why are they not applying?'

''Likely because they wanted to become Admin or Mini-Admin and now they have to go through a process. If they only wanted that, they probably weren't fit for the position."''

Again, there are people who will do lower level jobs who aren't applying. Why (if they're not being turned away)?

"'it's impossible for you to see chat w/o a mod because you are one.'

''I can see if there isn't or is one by looking at chat while not in it. I've almost never seen it modless. Usually see at-least one or two."''

I see chat modless at least once a week, normally more. Hell, even other admins agree. Also, I don't count as a mod being there but not responding to pings "as a mod who is there", though, if I were to factor this in, it'd be at least 3 times a week.

Note: I'm not saying this is bad. I know we have lives; but I am saying it's equivalent to you not being there.

"That's not understaffed in my opinion."

You keep defending yourself by saying we're not understaffed. If that's so, do you think if we had 25 staff members we'd be overstaffed? What about 33? Look, you can't say "we have enough people as is" but then turn around and say "I want to increase the amount we can have before filling the ones we currently have".

"1) The only people that it turns away clearly weren't devoted enough to the wiki. Staff should be devoted enough to go through all those ranks to reach what they want. "

There are plently of people devoted to the wiki but they don't want to

1) deal w/ the shit staff members have too. Especially since quite a few rules aren't enforced and I've seen staff get hammered for trying to enforce our rules.

2) don't have the qulaifications needed (in which case I won't defend them).

3) realize that pretty much all lower positions are filled because no one is moving up and realize they also can't run for a higher position.

"3) So when they do get filled the people in them are more qualified and know what they're doing."

How long is it going to take us to fill 33 positions? Not only that, but where people have to rank up when we can't even fill 25 w/ measures that are half as strict?

"Also, this thread is supposed to help prevent lazy and bad staff."

Adding to our max staff count won't help. You're basically saying to 5 people doing a job for 5 people to do said job. They work hard and get the job done. You then add 5 more people to that same job. The work load is smaller and takes less people and, if you keep doing it, eventually everyone in said group will become lazy. Adding more staff positions will not help our sitation. It will only help it get worse. If you truly wanted staff that were more strict, why not make a forum that set a rule that would make sure they were strict? If you wanted there to be more staff members, why not make a forum that promotes people to entering the ranks in positions that are currently open (which is quite a few)?

Overall, this entire forum is pointless as you yourself have unintentionally stated it's pointlesness.