User blog:Flutterbutter/A Comment About Voting on Applications

I know this is something I have covered or discussed in the past before, but it's something that, recently, I have a seen a major resurgence of. Because of this, I decided to once again make my point on this issue that plagues our current voting system when it comes to users applying for staff positions - supporting someone to give them a chance.

This whole thing is a very broad topic that can be swayed by a persons opinions of someone else (for example, someone might do this if they like the person) or, something else I've noticed that, is the thing that bothers me most about this, is that someone wants to be nice. This can become a serious issue when one user does it and everyone else who was opposing for a valid reason begin to support so they don't look like a dick compared to the one person who supported to be kind.

Now, I get you don't want to look like a dick, but this is something that can become a serious issue simply because we're giving the wrong people an opportunity they don't deserve. I know I may sound rude right now, but it's true. We're coming awfully close to giving someone, though they may be "qualified" a position they're not ready for.

You might ask yourself what the problem w/ that is and it comes down to a very simple reason. Because we're so kind and putting them into that position, when they screw up or don't do anything, are we going to be mean enough to demote them? Probably not. Not only that, but it also creates a mess other staff have to clean up, which is counteractive to having them on staff.

Users not on staff might not see how that's such a bad thing. I mean, staff applied for their positions so they should have been ready for something like this and, in a way you're not wrong. Now, instead of saying my usual spiel I'm going to give you an example that might affect the community as a whole. What if we passed every rule, no matter how biased or unfair it may be, on the assumption that, "It might work."? Where would this community be if someone proposed something outlandish, lets say, closing of all RP on the assumption that it will lower our block rates by preventing fights? I mean, it might work, right? We don't know until we try.

You're probably thinking, "That's outlandish! This wiki is is based around RPs!" and you're absolutely right. But, now let me ask you, who are the ones who keep this wiki running, clean things up and prevent big fights from happening? The staff.

So why are you putting people who won't necessarily be able to do their jobs into a position they won't be moved out of? Isn't that just as counteractive as us making a rule, removing it then remaking it?

Why be "kind" when the welfare of our wiki is in jeopardy?

Thanks for reading. Honestly, this isn't aimed @ any one forum in particular, it's just something I've noticed happening a lot more lately after it decreased awhile back and it's not something I really like seeing. You should vote based on how you think that person would operate in that position based on what you currently know about them, not based around how kind you want to be.

The reason we have these applications is to prevent people who are statistically qualified for a job but not someone we'd trust or want in that job from getting to that position and fucking everything up.

Again, thank you for your time. :^)