A Complaints Forum?

[Davey Gaga]

As proposed by a particular member [who, at this point, wishes to remain anonymous], I have decided to raise the issue about the lack of an appropriate area in which all members of the site are encouraged to complain about a particular rule, staff action/decision and where everyone else can see that this issue is being dealt with.

Specifically, this member would like to see a forum, which is moderated by a select few individuals on the team of staff, where anyone can freely discuss pressing issues in an environment away from staff whom members feel is acting biased. The idea is that it is important for all members to see that raised issues are in constant discussion and are not being forgotten.

So, your thoughts on the implementation of a complaints forum, the specific workings of which will be dealt with at a later date?

 

[Daenerys]

I always thought a complaints forum was necessary, I think there's been like 3 points where one was going to be introduced, but nothing ever happened with that so I can see why one would be needed. Last time one was introduced someone flipped it around entirely with member reps and all that so it all went to hell.

which is moderated by a select few individuals on the team of staff,

Not such a big fan of that idea, however. Especially since if you plan to exclude any Gmod or Admin from moderating that area, wouldn't that be a huge problem, user-group wise? I think all staff members deserve to see this section too, but perhaps a rule could be that if a complaints thread is regarding them, they are not to post in it? Or something like that.

 

[Prince Oberyn Martel]

I think its a good idea. Not sure about only having a select few from staff being in on it though. Either all staff (to give them chance to defend themselves and fairness more than anything) or only have the GMods and Admins moderate that particular section so no other staff feels left out because they dont have the ability to post in it whilst another from their same usergroup does.

 

[Davey Gaga]

Not such a big fan of that idea, however. Especially since if you plan to exclude any Gmod or Admin from moderating that area, wouldn't that be a huge problem, user-group wise? I think all staff members deserve to see this section too, but perhaps a rule could be that if a complaints thread is regarding them, they are not to post in it? Or something like that.

Usergroups wouldn't have to be dragged into it; the idea was that three of the staff (one, from each usergroup) would be chosen to deal with the issues at hand, which would help to ensure consistency, fairness and the impossibility of any of the staff or members possibly losing sight of the problem and end up excacerbating said problem in the process. Staff wouldn't be denied visual access to the forum, however.

I imagine that the anonymous user planned for this forum to be used when problems could not be solved between the staffer in question, which excludes the need for that staffer to be present in the complaint, anyway (think: when you make a complaint at a place of work, it's generally away from the person about whom you are complaining).

 

[Dean Winchester]

I would suggest that the same few staffers (maybe one from each UG?) be used to discuss the matters in the forum, I think having the same staffers do it each time is the best way of ensuring fairness, and it means staffers won't feel obligated to jump in to defend their friends and have it all go to hell etc. If the 3 most level headed/neutral staffers are the ones doing it, and they can act as something of a "go between" then that would probably work best, IMO.

Define neutral? Wouldn't that judgment could be considered as a mere opinion? I believe that it would be suitable if the complains are handled by a selected few depending on the situation.

For example, a staff member should never come aboard to support X or Y party simply because that would be considered as favoritism. So yes, I agree to a certain extent with this suggestion, but now about restricting the administration of said forums to only a few staff members.

Obviously all staffers could see the board, it'd just be that anyone not of the 3 moderating would be asked not to post. Obviously if the issue was with one of those 3 then that person wouldn't be involved.

Just my 3 cents =)

Hence my comment which states that the selected staffers would be different depending on each case.

Again, if anyone believes that the complaints are not effective enough, the usage of PM is highly encouraged. PM are there not for just random chat =/

 

[Dean Winchester]

Well the issue i can see with that is that if a different 3 do it every time, then the judgement being used will be different every time.

If it's the same 3, then the vast majority of people should be treated the same. The most emotionally stable/neutral staffers should be the ones in that position (esp the ones who don't tend to get too involved with members and have never had run ins with any members)

I see your point, and I suppose the chosen staff members will be elected by the staff in general. Regardless of the people in charge, if a member feels some sort of bias in the verdict, the member still holds the right to PM an administration and ask a reevaluation of the case.

 

[SaShman]

If it's the same 3, then the vast majority of people should be treated the same. The most emotionally stable/neutral staffers should be the ones in that position (esp the ones who don't tend to get too involved with members and have never had run ins with any members)

I like the idea of having the same three staff members do it each time, but there should also be a stand in who can step up if one of the three staffers is personally involved with a particular issue.

I see your point, and I suppose the chosen staff members will be elected by the staff in general.

I think the chosen staff members should be selected by the entire forum community, because the complaints that will be dealt with will be coming from regular members not staffers.