AzirtheEmperorFerret
Also, I'm not sure why you're pinning this entirely on me. I'm not the one who was complaining off-site about it. I'm also not even the first one to bring up that the applications shouldn't have been rejected or approved before the closing deadline. Pointing fingered exclusively at me because I'm the more vocal one, I guess?

AzirtheEmperorFerret

---the point I was making---








---your head---

I guess you missed the part of my post where I mentioned I was previously an admin for other forum sites, because otherwise you probably wouldn't have called me "misinformed about how online moderating works." I have three years of moderator AND administration experience with sites like this, and I also have both family and friends who either are currently moderators/admins, or were in the past. I've also helped to train moderators. I know a fair bit about moderation and I've gone through (and met or exceeded) far steeper requirements than what this site asked for.

I'm not as misinformed as you'd like to believe, but by all means, keep telling yourself that if it makes you sleep comfortably at night. I guess every other person who thinks the site staff are incapable are also "misinformed," right? Even though they're in the same position?

You also completely misunderstood my segment about job interviews and callbacks.

really seems like some people are just hellbent on finding every single flaw in this site. to me, sending out rejection emails, personalized or not, is better than not hearing anything? i'd rather get that to know that at least my email was received than just wondering if my app arrived in or not. if they decided based on reading your application that you weren't a good fit, why not just send the rejection notice away? i'm sure a lot of factors went into the application process, other sites i've been on do account checks and post checks and all kinds of stuff. can't see why FV would be different.

i think no matter what the site did when handling these applications, people would have had problems with it. every time the site takes a breath, there's users waiting to jump down the staff's throats. if you're so against how the site is run, why are you here?

@arts-waifu

Also, I would like to point out two comments in your most recent post.

1. "exercise their prior experience and knowledge as a past/current moderator from another site." for a volunteer position, prior experience is an asset, not a requirement. Good way to lose a lot of potential good moderators by EXPECTING them to have past experience.

2. "However, if the applicant DOES get a call and an interview, yes, the boss does make a second phone call later on to tell the applicant whether they do or do not get the job, and a reason why." Uhhhh, if you send in an application and she doesn't contact you back ... that's not getting an interview. You would get the interview if she was interested, but if you didn't get a positive response, and got denied, you never got the "interview" to begin with. So, there's no reason to send out potentiall 50 PERSONALIZED EMAILS. People who are PAID to hire don't do shit like that, what makes you think a volunteer position should tailor more to YOUR selfish needs than that?

So ... we know you're entitled and incredibly misinformed about online moderating and how job applications work. "Real life jobs" ARE the same as moderator positions, but more like real life volunteer positions. Real life volunteer positions ALSO don't lay bare why you didn't get the position.

Maybe, just maybe, this kind of conversation that we're all having here is the reason why you didn't get accepted. Your behavior here is pretty indicative of how you would act as a moderator and a team player.

Terminus
Furthermore, people have been complaining off-site about the capabilities of the staff long before the mod applications. It's no secret to anyone that the staff on this site are poorly regarded in their ability to perform their tasks and duties. And there are very valid reasons for it.

Terminus
Real life jobs aren't the same as online moderator positions. The same logic doesn't apply, so I'm going to ignore that part of your comment.

Moderator applications are never supposed to be "time sensitive." They're not something you can just fling out at the last minute and then rush through to fit the time frame. They take time. Speaking as someone who has been in the position to hire new moderators for a forum site on many occasions, you're supposed to take a number of steps which were not taken here.

The steps are usually as follows:
1. Determine when you're going to open/close moderator applications, and determine criteria for the application.
2. Open and close moderator applications at the designated time.
3. Look through each application seriously and determine whether or not the applicant fits the position.
4. Successful applicants are contacted and made to be a "Mod In Training," and will endure a trial period wherein they will either:
a: exercise their prior experience and knowledge as a past/current moderator from another site
b: be trained in certain aspects that they are lacking in
5. Mods in Training that don't fully pan out are let go, and encouraged to re-apply at a later date
6. A public announcement is made, announcing the new mods and thanking all unsuccessful applicants with the same encouragement to try again later.

Looking through the applications is supposed to happen AFTER the applications are closed. Not during. Furthermore, the more experienced people apply, the better, because it means less people you have to train. Moderator applications should not have been opened this close to site opening if the staff base did not have the proper time to dedicate. You can't half-ass this. The moderators on this site need to be professional, mature, available, and level headed. They have to deal with the public moreso than anyone else, which means that they can't throw tantrums or make excuses.

If Deinmaar didn't want to send out "personalized emails," as you put it, then they shouldn't have sent out any rejection letter at all. If you want to apply IRL job logic to this situation, think of it like this. It's usually stated in a job posting that "only successful applicants will be contacted." Thus, people know they didn't make it if they don't get a call. However, if the applicant DOES get a call and an interview, yes, the boss does make a second phone call later on to tell the applicant whether they do or do not get the job, and a reason why. Usually, that reason is "we've chosen to move ahead with another candidate."

Deinmaar did not handle this application in a professional matter, one way or another. And how are the users supposed to put their faith in any future moderators when they can't even put faith in the site admin?

Personally, I don't know of any job, paid, unpaid, internship or otherwise, that personally lets each applicant know why they failed to meet the criteria of the job.  It seems to me that the sense of entitlement here is a bit overwhelming.  Why would any boss have to tell a potential employee why they are not selected? That's not part of their job, and they have other things to concern themself about. I'm certain there was probably a set list of criteria that was used, and if an applicant didn't meet that, they got a rejection letter. Simple as that.  I don't understand why it should be more complicated than that. 

I think that saying things like "moderators on other sites that saw or were shown the emails agreed that it's really unprofessional" is something that shouldn't happen to begin with. It speaks of whining about not being selected, of again, a sense of entitlement that is completely out of relation to the facts.  Why should another site even care or be commenting on how this site is run? 

Saying that Admin-Deinmaar must have been unfair because she won't sent personalized rejection letters is like saying you are so important and privileged that you absolutely MUST have a reason. It's not her job. It's not anyone's job. You take the rejection, and you accept it, and you move on.  It's not the end of the world. There's no explanation owed.  She even said in her comment, if you truly want an explanation, she will provide it. That's already more than most do.

Paid or not, the position of mod is a HIRED position. With an application process. Not everyone can become a mod. Not everyone is suited to be a mod. Was Deinmaar obligated to say exactly what her hiring criteria was? No, not at all, because saying that would have skewed the results.  Sending rejection letters before the application process was complete, it also would have skewed the results to say why people were rejected. 

She's explained that it was time sensitive and that personalized emails just weren't going to happen.  What people have to remember is, she has a life as well. She had to hire 40 new people, and now she has to get them trained. She doesn't have time to handhold people who didn't fit her criteria. It's just not possible.

@Admin-Deinmaar
Aaaaaaaaaaand, there it is. The quip about IRL jobs, as was predicted to be your reply. //laughs
The thing is, it's gotten out publicly that applications were rejected without reason thanks to other people complaining about it off-site, and even moderators on other sites that saw or were shown the emails agreed that it's really unprofessional to not say why an applicant was rejected. (Not that people have a very high opinion of the staff's "professionalism" on this site in the first place, but I'm sure you knew that, right?) And even now, you yourself just gave several reasons you could have brought up in the rejection, in your comment. So why is it so hard, or time-consuming, to reply with a simple reply like this:

"Thank you for your interest in a moderator position. Unfortunately, your application was rejected for the following reason: -failed criteria-"

That's literally all you needed. You could have even copy+pasted and just changed the criteria for each email, which would have cut down on time.