I've always been a fan of Frank Herbert/David Brin belief that 'power attracts the corruptible'. Accordingly, I liked to keep the process a bit opaque. Since nearly E's founding staff selection on this site has been out of the blue; we find someone we think is suitable and ask them if they wish to be staff. Current staff understands that authority means responsibility, it is not a reward. Several members have had quiet tenures where they decided it was not something they could personally handle.
For a time, the Mentor teams were a great way to find people who enjoyed volunteering for the site, but did not necessarily do so out of a desire to attain staffhood.
Reluctance aside, here is a brief rundown of how it works and what we look for.
Currently, the process starts off with a list of active members.
This is an insanely complicated SQL query that determines how available and active you are on the site. We can check intro activity, etc. as well, creating a 'short' (top 100) list of potential candidates who are provably regulars.
Members who get and maintain the Muse tag will certainly have priority. That is, greeting new members, and making them feel welcome before and after their approval.
Of the members on this list, we try to look for the following:
How they interact with people. Are they generally friendly, approachable, and welcoming? Someone who is aloof, cold, or rude does not make for good staff, especially as we've been trying to make them more approachable lately.
How they handle tense situations. Level-headedness. Something that really draws our notice is if a member can resolve a situation sans authority to do so.
This never means throwing rules at people. Quite the opposite, often. It's about being the sort of person who can command respect with nothing but the quality of their word choice. This is a writing forum, after all.
Being outside current staff circles. While not a dealbreaker (outside of significant others), given someone who is a close friend of current G-level and someone who isn't, we're going to go with the not-currently-friend. There are a few reasons for this:
- It is an attempt to avoid nepotism and clique-building in staff. We are proactively aware of the close friendships staff members have formed and try to make sure those influences get dampened.
- Bringing in outside perspectives helps immensely, and I've learned the hard way to bring in as outside a view as possible because staff gets used to my thought disorder.
- Most importantly, bringing in members with their completely separate friend-circles means their friends are more likely to approach staff, because they now have a friend as a staff member.
Currently the most notable example of doing this is Valerian, who continues to provide a more outside view of things. No staff at the time had any interaction with her prior to us asking her. Most recent Oracle promotions have been influenced by this to at least some degree, but this has been a loose policy for a very long time now.
Empathy for others. We expect you to understand and appreciate the concerns of others. This is especially necessary in a text medium, as it is very easy to separate the words from the human behind them.
Spotting and handling manipulation. An important life skill in its own right. Members who are proactive in handling this (reporting creepy behavior, etc.) are looked on more positively.
Stability. Everyone who is anyone has mental issues. However, if these issues appear to be clouding your judgment or your ability to interact with others, then it becomes a problem.
Respect for women, sexuality, and trans*. Over half my site consist of groups who need to be concerned for their safety, for one reason or another. Several members here
would be murdered in their home countries for participating in this site. Some for being trans*, some for being gay, some for being women.
A healthy approach to D/s relations. 'Not participating' is a perfectly healthy such relation. For those who are dominant and/or submissive, however, we expect healthy and clear behavior. Much of this gets discussed in our rules, policies, and stickies in various ways. Extremely unhealthy people may find themselves banned.
Taking up leadership elements proactively. Running contests of your own, coordinating things between members, and so on. This shows you value your time here and the people you spend it with.
After we choose a few suitable people, we ask them directly.
A fair percentage do end up turning staff roles down, either initially or after their shadowing period. Perhaps a third or so.
If they say yes, new Oracles are given a brief shadow-period where they have the powers of Oracles, and access to the staff forums for Oracles, but don't have the tag quite yet. They get used to things, and occasionally get overwhelmed. It is not an easy job and I love you all >_>
Assuming things go smoothly, however, eventually the tag gets switched and they become full oracles.
A note on G-Level.
I decide these individuals personally, with input from other staff. What I look for is an exceptional sense of level-headedness.
For example, there are members I have a less than stellar relationship with. This site has been around for awhile, and all. My history with or perception of anyone is completely separate from my role as administrator here, however. I have even advocated for some of them behind the scenes.
Everyone currently at G-level knows I expect this of them, and most of them have actively demonstrated it at one point or another. This does tend to result in the staff getting promoted to being G-level tending to be more aloof than the rest... it is definitely a balancing act.
Hopefully this provides some insight. Some concepts may seem vague, but either they require a series of essays to properly explain, or otherwise may require examples that would call people out. Others probably seem quite obvious.
Feel free to reply with questions, but understand some pruning may get done. Some topics might need a blog entry for a response.
Thank you for reading. : )
