Jump to content

Promoting the Use of Negative Votes.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Dabomb(OD) said:

if someone drops a -15 or -20 and you are in any division other than D2 you are EXTREMELY unlikely to pass

 

If someone is dropping a -15 or -20 then that is kind of the intent.

The true intention in this case is to provide constructive feedback that you want someone to learn from *before* they rise higher in ranks, and sometimes that is the better approach. It's easy for people to shrug off feedback if they are still getting promotions anyway, and -1 votes are pretty easy to overcome. People are much more likely to take feedback seriously, and make an earnest effort to learn from it, if it is actively preventing them from advancing. And in the case of red flags popping up suggesting how they might use the power and authority of higher ranks, you would definitely want that person to learn from any constructive feedback first before giving them it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

With this being a big controversy. I think one big issue that I think could change that would be positive towards these negative votes, is that it takes 1 reason to negative vote somebody. While, it takes 3 reasons to positive vote someone. Why don't we increase minimum requirements of the reasons on why we are negative voting somebody? If it really matters to someone that they are dropping their full weight on someone, I think they should have more then 1 reason. i see that some are arguing against the negative voting due to people only giving 1 reason while the person being promoted has done "everything" thats why they are being promoted.

 

I believe that if there are more valid reasons to back up the negative vote, It will show to people to see more of why they are being negative voting. Also, having 2 more reasons to vote will also get rid of the argument of  "they are just neg voting because they disagree with the opinions of the person in the promotion." That was one huge complaint that I saw during my promotion. Another reason I think this is a good idea is because there is 3 reasons to a negative vote, anyone who disagrees just to disagree with the promotion due to the opposition to opinions, will not be allowed to give a negative vote,

 

You could argue that a person's reason doesn't have to be "valid" to still have 3 reasons marked, If that happens, The person negative voting will overall will not be supported afterwards in later promotions/ideas if they still believe in those invalid claims when putting in their negative voting. Overall, It would make voting a lot more fairer and it would show the person who is being negative voted that they have truly a lot to go before being promoted and it shows through 3 valid reasons.

 

I think it will legitimize the negative vote more if there was more reasons to go off by.  You may argue that people voting negative voting at -15 know what they are talking about because they were promoted to that rank that allows them to negative -10 through -20 because  they proved of having overall more experience. Having 3 reasons on the negative vote would legitimize that persons claim of experience and reasoning of neg voting and because negative voting over -10 is only allowed for select individuals and it takes a lot of people to break that difference with 3 reasons behind it and during times of lack of clan voting participation,

 

It overall allows people to fairly be evaluated with negative and positive votes during this promotion. Not everyone can be commanders and generals. It may be due to the lack of experience, or due to the lack of time and spaces to be allowed in these higher groups or they just do not want to be a general or commander due to how time consuming it is. It also can be because  people do not approve of them being promoted because they need to prove why they should be promoted and they are deemed unworthy, hence why we are having negative votes. The people in the lower ranks can not  support the candidate as much as  they want to because of how much point they are given.  If the whole lower community disagrees with 1 general or 3 officers or 1 commanders, It's allows them to see why this person should be "Nuked" by that spicy -10+ negative bomb because they only have 5 positive votes. 

 

I have seen people who survived the commander/general "NUKE", heck i am one of them, It has been joke around a little bit but it's not fun when you are hit with one just because of 1 reason, Then we have arguments on why "that vote is unlegit, he only has 1 reason why he's neg voting that person -10+". I believe this change will get rid of that for the most part. If anyone else is arguing against the negative vote afterwards, They just need have to agree with the reasons and either choose to try to change that person's mind and disprove 3 reasons why there's the negative vote in a positive, logical way that helps the negative voter see why it is a mistake.  Or to stay silent and allow the person being nuked to accept the spanking because they are being told on the intent that they should not be 

 

In summary of all, I believe that the negative reasons should be raised to 3 due to the seriousness of vote gets larger when you get to the higher ranks and it levels out the voting field a lot. It will allow people to learn that there is a lot more to it being an officer, senior officer, general and commander. NOTE: I think this should only be applied towards the promotion of 2nd Lt.  and above and of course this will only work up to promotion 2nd Lt.-Colonel because to the voting powers have a lot more effect then MW05 and below and also deals with greater ranks that expect more Core, Practical and Exceptional expectations and they are getting into administration of the ranks. 

"With Great Power comes with Great Responsibility"-Uncle Ben from SpiderMan. and with the OD motto, "Respect is Earned, not Given" having 3 reasons towards a neg vote will show that these votes means Respect.   

Edited by PureSkoomaOD
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I really honestly did not want to address this topic any further because we've already beaten this horse to death, buried, dug it up, stripped it for meat, re-buried the bones, and had a séance.

 

But as my -15 on the recent promotion of @PureSkoomaOD keeps getting mentioned in passing in this posts. I'll go ahead and address this.

 

---

 

Skooma, your concept you propose here is not exactly new. We've had people propose this idea in concept several times in the past and it always gets shot down. I don't recall the specifics of those posts. But they obviously did not get agreed upon by the majority of the Admin team at the time to pass.

 

---

 

My issue with putting further burden on members to find 3 reasons vs the valid 1 is that we're not asking the same of people positive voting already with their 3 reasons. I'll explain what I mean. 

 

We don't sit here and require members to ONLY provide reasons that are accurate and aligned with the promotes new rank. Nor do we sit here and look to validate and prove that their reasons are valid. No, we allow members who are voting on Officers+ to use things like Active, GM, etc... as long as there's 3 reasons. 

 

If we stopped allowing that and had to validate the reasons for EVERY vote both ways. Which it would only be fair to. Not only would that take a LOT of time. But a LOT of extra work from the Admin team. Including yourself as part of the Admin team. There's no way that this burden should just fall on the General/Commanders. 

 

So, these people who are proving 1 neg vote reason and are doing so by proving constructive criticism shouldn't be punished when they've already done the work to research before posting said vote. This is at least what should be done. 

 

Also, for the record. I never heard a peep from you about you promotion. I only ended up talking to you when I stepped into a channel and found that a discussion was taking place about it. So I decided to talk about it. 

 

To quote @Aerineth(OD)

 

On 6/2/2021 at 12:28 PM, Aerineth(OD) said:

Also, as a side note, I've -20'd someone before and they still passed with ~20 votes above and beyond their required vote amounts. So a -20 on a single drop isn't the end of the world. Even with Skooma, there were multiple people totaling up to maybe 30 ish votes in the red.. but he still had enough to overcome it. The problem isn't with the amount being negged, it's just that people are taking it too personal.

 

Friends of the member need to stop getting so upset and either talk to the people who are neg voting to find WHY they did so instead of and I'm going to be crass. Being children and making snide and passive aggressive remarks. 

 

It should be the person up for promotion who's looking to understand why they were neg voted if they don't understand from the reason posted. 

 

It should NOT fall on the person neg voting to sit here and justify over and over and over why the neg vote was cast. 

 

I'm ALWAYS happy to explain to the person why I'm neg voting and what information I used to back up that neg vote. I'd prefer it's done in private as it's only their business. But if they want it publicly drawn out at their request. I can do that as well as should ANY person who neg votes. 

 

But often this is NOT the case. Most people just sit there and wonder why they were neg voted and thus the cycle of cynicism spins.

 

**side note**

 

I really don't want to drag this on any further. If someone wants to discuss this further with me RE: my post here. I'm happy to do so on discord and will put all the time aside needed to have that conversation. ❤️ 

Edited by JD(OD)
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, JD(OD) said:

Friends of the member need to stop getting so upset and either talk to the people who are neg voting to find WHY they did so instead of and I'm going to be crass. Being children and making snide and passive aggressive remarks. 

 

It should be the person up for promotion who's looking to understand why they were neg voted if they don't understand from the reason posted. 

 

It should NOT fall on the person neg voting to sit here and justify over and over and over why the neg vote was cast. 

 

I'm ALWAYS happy to explain to the person why I'm neg voting and what information I used to back up that neg vote. I'd prefer it's done in private as it's only their business. But if they want it publicly drawn out at their request. I can do that as well as should ANY person who neg votes. 

 

But often this is NOT the case. Most people just sit there and wonder why they were neg voted and thus the cycle of cynicism spins.

This is the whole reason I made the thread, and yet this still turned into a conversation on whether or not someone dropping -15 or -20 is in the right.

 

I hesitate to comment but I have to reiterate since this is a General Discussion thread. Please talk to your members about the voting system leadership. This should be a concerted effort to curb that kind of behavior prevalent on previous promotions.

Edited by Zakspeeeed(OD)
  • Like 1
  • Clap 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2021 at 12:35 AM, Terra said:

 

If someone is dropping a -15 or -20 then that is kind of the intent.

The true intention in this case is to provide constructive feedback that you want someone to learn from *before* they rise higher in ranks, and sometimes that is the better approach. It's easy for people to shrug off feedback if they are still getting promotions anyway, and -1 votes are pretty easy to overcome. People are much more likely to take feedback seriously, and make an earnest effort to learn from it, if it is actively preventing them from advancing. And in the case of red flags popping up suggesting how they might use the power and authority of higher ranks, you would definitely want that person to learn from any constructive feedback first before giving them it.

Its odd that one person has that much control over someone's promotion. It seems unbalanced looking at it on the flip side.

 

On 6/2/2021 at 10:28 AM, Aerineth(OD) said:

 

Promotions aren't participation trophies, especially on tier change promotions. You have to earn the rank, and by default those who already have the rank have more weight in evaluating the members going up for that rank. These are especially important for tier change promotions between Warrant Officer and Officer, Officer and Senior Officer, and Officer to General. 

This is a good point one in which I have also considered and still its to heavily based upon opinion. Especially when a member checks 9/10 boxes. If that is the case and someone is up for promotion to Major  they need 35 votes. Take D3 for example if every single one of their members max voted with valid reasons and the member checked all the boxes they still couldn't even pass the person. Now you go and have 1 person throw even a -5 none the less a -15+ the person isn't going to promote. That is not balanced. 

Quote

 

If we made it so that you could only -1 then you also have to remove the ability to do anything more than +1, that'd be just lopsided and nobody would ever fail, because you've taken away the system to prevent a promotion that shouldn't be happening according to the person's opinion at the time of voting.

Its still lopsided given the current vote requirement along with the member count look at the odds? I'm not sayin -1 is the answer but I think its a conversation worth having given the current state of membership that has not been going up but only going down over the last couple years one would think we'd be open to changing a broken system.

Quote

 

Something people should understand as well when it comes to neg voting; It's not that someone dislikes the person, or people are ganging up on a particular individual. It's intended to be a vessel to provide feedback reflective of the opinion and evidence behind the vote. You use negative votes to decide where you need improvements, and you use positive votes to determine what you're doing well. It's not personal when someone neg votes another. It's merely an evaluation of the current rank and potential future rank the member is going to. The fact that the knee jerk reaction of feeling it's personal with the neg votes is the problem in my opinion, not that people are neg voting or how much people are neg voting. 

Not the point I was getting at. 🙂

Quote

 

Take Skooma's promotion for instance. People rallied around him and vehemently disagreed with those who negged him, to the point that we have yet another of these discussions here on the forums. It's not personal against Skooma that he was negged. The members who voted the way they did just felt he wasn't ready yet, and that's exactly what the promotion system is used for coupled with evidence and recollection of past interactions of the member up for a promotion. 

Skooma was fortunate to be at the forefront of multi divisions he can't be used as the rule merely the exception. There are too many other cases in which the person wouldn't have passed.

Quote

 

Also, as a side note, I've -20'd someone before and they still passed with ~20 votes above and beyond their required vote amounts. So a -20 on a single drop isn't the end of the world. Even with Skooma, there were multiple people totaling up to maybe 30 ish votes in the red.. but he still had enough to overcome it. The problem isn't with the amount being negged, it's just that people are taking it too personal.

 

Just my 2 cents.

This side note is null and void like I said when D2 had over 300 members yeah.. its possible but times are changing and we should keep an open mind and stop turning a blind eye to a broken system in my opinion. Its easy to ignore and just like we ALL know its even harder to fix but im sure if we put our heads together we can come up with something even better that's more fitting or to staple on to what you said earlier than we must do something collectively to re-educate people on how to use the voting system it doesn't always have to be a neg vote? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Dabomb(OD) said:

Its odd that one person has that much control over someone's promotion. It seems unbalanced looking at it on the flip side.

 

Which one person is that? The only people to receive neg votes on their promotions lately, that I'm aware of, had multiple people neg voting them, not one person. And one of them still passed despite that. The system is a process by which the good and bad traits of an individual are weighed against each other, based on the experiences of those around them. People will hold us accountable for our bad traits, but if we bring enough good to the community then it can outweigh the mistakes or bad habits we have, and we can advance anyway.

 

Rather than being broken, I feel like recent promotions have been a shining example of that process working exactly as intended. The main issue, and the subject of this topic, is the way in which neg votes are being viewed. Not that neg votes are overpowering.

  • Upvote 2
  • Clap 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Terra said:

 

Which one person is that? The only people to receive neg votes on their promotions lately, that I'm aware of, had multiple people neg voting them, not one person. And one of them still passed despite that. The system is a process by which the good and bad traits of an individual are weighed against each other, based on the experiences of those around them. People will hold us accountable for our bad traits, but if we bring enough good to the community then it can outweigh the mistakes or bad habits we have, and we can advance anyway.

I guess I wasn't making myself clear I wasn't saying it happened in a recent promotion I'm looking at the system in general as you should the generals and commanders. Perhaps it would be better to have this discussion on discord as long forum discussions aren't always the best way to articulate a point of view for some.

16 hours ago, Terra said:

 

Rather than being broken, I feel like recent promotions have been a shining example of that process working exactly as intended. The main issue, and the subject of this topic, is the way in which neg votes are being viewed. Not that neg votes are overpowering.

I disagree I think it's a shining example of something we as a team should look at more closely. Instead of ignoring a system that more than 1 person is attempting to call attention to and saying they are unhappy with or would like to see a conversation of change?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2021 at 12:36 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

Its odd that one person has that much control over someone's promotion. It seems unbalanced looking at it on the flip side.

 

You're insinuating that because we have the ability to neg vote someone with so many votes, that we do so maliciously, which is entirely false. JD"s vote for instance where he dropped the -15 on Skooma was adequately backed up with why he felt the way he did. And it's our job as administration to not put someone into a position they may not be ready for yet.

 

On 6/6/2021 at 12:36 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

Skooma was fortunate to be at the forefront of multi divisions he can't be used as the rule merely the exception. There are too many other cases in which the person wouldn't have passed.

 

Just like prior, it's also our responsibility to be aware of the actions and abilities of the Officers, especially as they're coming up through the ranks. It is our overreaching job to ensure the continuity of the community, and that includes ensuring we are promoting capable, strong, and reliable leaders. We see those who are coming up and are more than willing to throw a few votes towards that person's promotion. Just because people aren't in your division, doesn't mean you can't get votes from outside, especially from the Generals. It's the entire reason we allow for Cross Division Promotions and Voting.

 

On 6/6/2021 at 12:36 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

Not the point I was getting at. 

 

Maybe not, but it's still what's going on to at least some degree. Ignoring this fact doesn't just make it go away, and ignoring it doesn't benefit the argument that there's something wrong with the promotion system. 

 

On 6/6/2021 at 12:36 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

Now you go and have 1 person throw even a -5 none the less a -15+ the person isn't going to promote. That is not balanced. 

 

There are plenty of members of the community who have 5 or more vote power, it isn't just the Generals.Everyone at or above the Rank of Captain can vote 5 points. And as I said originally they're given that much power in the system because they're deemed fit to judge those going for a similar rank to the member. While not entirely the same thing, an employee at a company doesn't have the same ability, power, or responsibility as the owner or managers. We are overall elected officials, by you, the members of this community. And for the Generals in particular, we are periodically called for an evaluation to effectively judge the contributions to ensure they're still representing the community as they need to be doing. If they're not representing the community appropriately, they're destined to be removed from power, and it's really that simple.

 

I sense a severe distrust in administration with your tone that you're using. We're not here to act maliciously, and we're not here to make people suffer. Those that want to game can do just that, but as you go through the ranks and start to have responsibilities, then people will be held to those expectations. At our core, we're just like every one of you; Gamers at heart. We're here because we enjoy gaming just as much as you all do with your friends. Much of what we do here is voluntary, we're not paid, and some days are better than others. But we do this because we believe that providing this place for everyone to gather and have fun is sustained. That unfortunately means that sometimes we have to make decisions that makes us unpopular. Whether that's in the form of punishments, negging on promotions, side with someone other than majority. But someone has to do it, otherwise, it would be pure chaos.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2021 at 6:36 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

Its odd that one person has that much control over someone's promotion. It seems unbalanced looking at it on the flip side.

Set against the effort it took them to get to that position, and the support they have to provide to maintain it, I would strongly disagree. 

 

On 6/6/2021 at 6:36 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

Now you go and have 1 person throw even a -5 none the less a -15+ the person isn't going to promote. That is not balanced. 

Perfectly balanced, if the reason for the negative vote is enough to cause concern. When hiring someone, evaluating someone, choosing a company to work with or pay for a job, you don't ignore a glaring issue just because everything else seems fine. These people have seen an issue that, for them, is a valid reason to vote against promotion.

 

On 6/6/2021 at 6:36 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

There are too many other cases in which the person wouldn't have passed.

I'm keen to see these examples, though you say "wouldn't have passed", implying hypotheticals and not real cases - where if someone had been neg voted, they wouldn't have got a promotion? Am I reading that right? If so... there are probably hundreds of instances yes, but dealing with hypotheticals doesn't help us here. If you mean there are too many cases where neg voting has stopped a promotion... I am also keen to see those examples. 

 

On 6/6/2021 at 6:36 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

This side note is null and void like I said when D2 had over 300 members yeah...

Absolutely not null and void when Skooma hit -34 and still passed. 

 

19 hours ago, Dabomb(OD) said:

Instead of ignoring a system that more than 1 person is attempting to call attention to and saying they are unhappy with or would like to see a conversation of change?

I'm going to try and lay out my thoughts on this in a few points.

  • Firstly, there are a lot of times people have raised a dislike with the negative voting, sure - but it is a rare occasion when it is not at the same time as support of someone whom they support for promotion. I have yet to see an argument against neg votes flare up where the person has not been in support of the person being neg voted.
  • It is even rarer still to see someone present a viable alternative. The only solution I have ever seen presented is "do away with negative voting" - which defeats the whole purpose of trying to evaluate people if you have no avenue to raise criticism.
  • Similar to the above. No-one is ignoring it. This thread is a perfect example of how the issue really isn't being ignored. Quite the opposite. The issue isn't attention. The issue is a viable alternative (and support for it!)
  • On the subject of support - there may well be people against neg votes. However there appears to be a significant number more in support of it, and a lot of those people are those who do take an active role in admin and growth, and are climbing up to help run this place.  
  • I also want to raise that there are people who have been promoted that others have been dead set against promoting. Yet you do not see them campaigning to change the voting system in the same way we see campaigns against neg voters - even though people end up getting the promotion anyway!
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2021 at 8:42 AM, Aerineth(OD) said:

 

You're insinuating that because we have the ability to neg vote someone with so many votes, that we do so maliciously, which is entirely false. JD"s vote for instance where he dropped the -15 on Skooma was adequately backed up with why he felt the way he did. And it's our job as administration to not put someone into a position they may not be ready for yet.

Don't put words in my mouth because you perceived it that way. I was stating that I felt it was unbalanced. I said nothing of malicious intent. I was speaking more broadly than Skooma and JD's situation. But its becoming increasingly difficult to have a conversation when its the only example we all keep using. You are insinuating that 1 person spoke on the behalf of the entire administration isn't the case.

 

On 6/7/2021 at 8:42 AM, Aerineth(OD) said:

 

Just like prior, it's also our responsibility to be aware of the actions and abilities of the Officers, especially as they're coming up through the ranks. It is our overreaching job to ensure the continuity of the community, and that includes ensuring we are promoting capable, strong, and reliable leaders. We see those who are coming up and are more than willing to throw a few votes towards that person's promotion. Just because people aren't in your division, doesn't mean you can't get votes from outside, especially from the Generals. It's the entire reason we allow for Cross Division Promotions and Voting.

Agreed 

On 6/7/2021 at 8:42 AM, Aerineth(OD) said:

 

Maybe not, but it's still what's going on to at least some degree. Ignoring this fact doesn't just make it go away, and ignoring it doesn't benefit the argument that there's something wrong with the promotion system. 

I'm not ignoring it, and to your point if anything it makes it more difficult to have this conversation which is why I said I'd be open to talking it over on discord there's to much room for interpretation through text as we ALL have experienced before. 🙂 

On 6/7/2021 at 8:42 AM, Aerineth(OD) said:

 

 

There are plenty of members of the community who have 5 or more vote power, it isn't just the Generals.Everyone at or above the Rank of Captain can vote 5 points. And as I said originally they're given that much power in the system because they're deemed fit to judge those going for a similar rank to the member. While not entirely the same thing, an employee at a company doesn't have the same ability, power, or responsibility as the owner or managers. We are overall elected officials, by you, the members of this community. And for the Generals in particular, we are periodically called for an evaluation to effectively judge the contributions to ensure they're still representing the community as they need to be doing. If they're not representing the community appropriately, they're destined to be removed from power, and it's really that simple.

It really isn't that simple and its unfair to portray it like that we have seen many cases where people that "we" haven't felt were fit for their role and yes sometimes they are removed or weed themselves out and sometimes it drags on for an incredibly long time years even. But that's a matter of opinion. 

On 6/7/2021 at 8:42 AM, Aerineth(OD) said:

 

I sense a severe distrust in administration with your tone that you're using. We're not here to act maliciously, and we're not here to make people suffer. Those that want to game can do just that, but as you go through the ranks and start to have responsibilities, then people will be held to those expectations. At our core, we're just like every one of you; Gamers at heart. We're here because we enjoy gaming just as much as you all do with your friends. Much of what we do here is voluntary, we're not paid, and some days are better than others. But we do this because we believe that providing this place for everyone to gather and have fun is sustained. That unfortunately means that sometimes we have to make decisions that makes us unpopular. Whether that's in the form of punishments, negging on promotions, side with someone other than majority. But someone has to do it, otherwise, it would be pure chaos.

I have sat alongside many of you in leadership, been a general myself and shared the same burdens and responsibility. My questions and concern aren't because I have ill feelings its simply trying to voice that I'd like an open discussion because I don't think it is a balanced system. If I thought JD was in the wrong I am a big boy I would go to JD and say hey explain to me the reason for your vote and have a conversation on around it. This is not specific to any one situation. Yes the thought did come to me during Skooma's promotion along with Juju's after I was calculating how many votes it would take for a person to pass because I looked at the membership and then looked at the vote count and was like geez it sure seems unbalanced. I truly don't need an explanation of expectations of generals I am well aware. Just like if I felt the need to rise a topic of discussion then if I saw something I thought to be out of order I do so now. Not because I am a general because I am a member. The thing is I always hear " we want more activity, we want engagement, we want change" From generals just look at some of the recent topics. But then if someone mentions change or asks a question it is coming across like "Don't question me it is the way it is and that is final" I'm not sure if you are realizing but your tone isn't an open one it seems like you are trying to shut me down or silence me. When we should both be open to conversation I'm not on a witch hunt and neither should you be. The mentality isn't in the best interest of the community. If that is how you perceived my previous messages than my apologies it was not my intention. 

 

On 6/7/2021 at 1:01 PM, Geordie(OD) said:

Set against the effort it took them to get to that position, and the support they have to provide to maintain it, I would strongly disagree. 

I can see your point of view it does take a lot of hard work to become of the position in which you have that amount of votes. It doesn't mean we cannot question or that everyone in that rank has perfect judgement. It isn't safe to assume that.

On 6/7/2021 at 1:01 PM, Geordie(OD) said:

 

Perfectly balanced, if the reason for the negative vote is enough to cause concern. When hiring someone, evaluating someone, choosing a company to work with or pay for a job, you don't ignore a glaring issue just because everything else seems fine. These people have seen an issue that, for them, is a valid reason to vote against promotion.

I disagree. Like our system in my current employer we are able to evaluate candidates. However one major difference that adds to the balance is not one person can solely decline a candidate. It's a collective decision there is always going to be someone that has feedback or doesn't think its the right person. Sometimes they are right... Sometimes they are wrong. I am in favor of a majority option.

On 6/7/2021 at 1:01 PM, Geordie(OD) said:

 

I'm keen to see these examples, though you say "wouldn't have passed", implying hypotheticals and not real cases - where if someone had been neg voted, they wouldn't have got a promotion? Am I reading that right? If so... there are probably hundreds of instances yes, but dealing with hypotheticals doesn't help us here. If you mean there are too many cases where neg voting has stopped a promotion... I am also keen to see those examples. 

Take a look at each divisions member base. An interesting ask knowing that once promotions are over they are gone? Unless membership changes I'm sure other situations will present and whether we have the conversation now or later is fine. 

On 6/7/2021 at 1:01 PM, Geordie(OD) said:

I'm going to try and lay out my thoughts on this in a few points.

  • Firstly, there are a lot of times people have raised a dislike with the negative voting, sure - but it is a rare occasion when it is not at the same time as support of someone whom they support for promotion. I have yet to see an argument against neg votes flare up where the person has not been in support of the person being neg voted.
  • It is even rarer still to see someone present a viable alternative. The only solution I have ever seen presented is "do away with negative voting" - which defeats the whole purpose of trying to evaluate people if you have no avenue to raise criticism.
  • Similar to the above. No-one is ignoring it. This thread is a perfect example of how the issue really isn't being ignored. Quite the opposite. The issue isn't attention. The issue is a viable alternative (and support for it!)
  • On the subject of support - there may well be people against neg votes. However there appears to be a significant number more in support of it, and a lot of those people are those who do take an active role in admin and growth, and are climbing up to help run this place.  
  • I also want to raise that there are people who have been promoted that others have been dead set against promoting. Yet you do not see them campaigning to change the voting system in the same way we see campaigns against neg voters - even though people end up getting the promotion anyway!

I can see how the message can get mixed. Like I said in my response to Aern I only thought of it after seeing the recent promotions and looked into it. So again you have a valid point and I don't want to get the message confused I am in favor of neg voting. I too agree that it is a useful tool to provide feedback to our member base as they rise through the ranks. I do also think that it is extremely deterring when someone puts in a ton of work and isn't perfect has a situation or run in with a member or general and gets shot down and one could say tough luck oh well. But I figure there are still ways we can provide feedback without shitting on someone. For Generals promotions each members vote is only worth 1 in either direction.  Ill put some more thought into it to see if I can make sense of this age old topic and I really am trying to look at all angles. 🙂 

 

Thanks for your reply Geordie, Aern and Terra I appreciate your perspectives it adds more color to the picture. 

  • Clap 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2021 at 4:17 PM, Dabomb(OD) said:

long forum discussions aren't always the best way to articulate a point of view for some.

 

Well maybe we can try keeping it to short discussions then until that Discord chat.

If you are suggesting that the system is unbalanced, then I disagree. I've seen people earn promotions despite neg votes, both recently and in the past. I've also seen people not receive promotions because of neg votes, and based on the reasons provided in those neg votes I feel it was better in the case of some of them that they didn't. People sometimes failing promotions is not an indication that the system is unbalanced. People always passing their promotions is an indication that it is.

 

If you are suggesting that we are ignoring the issue, then I again disagree, mainly on account of the fact that you basically just got mobbed for suggesting that we were.

 

If you are suggesting that all promotions that receive neg votes of -5 or higher are unfair, then I disagree. If you are suggesting that a specific promotion was unfair because of certain neg votes of -5 or greater, then I might agree, but you would have to cite what that specific promotion was.

 

If you are suggesting that people are using too many work and business analogies at this point, then I would probably agree.

  • Laugh 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2021 at 7:17 PM, Dabomb(OD) said:

Perhaps it would be better to have this discussion on discord as long forum discussions aren't always the best way to articulate a point of view for some.


Very true. In most circumstances, voice is better at conveying points than text. However, when you can’t get all stakeholders on voice at the same time, we have to resort to forums. I pro tip that I do. Whenever I see a Great Wall of text from @Aerineth(OD), I copy and paste it into text to speech website. 😄

  • Laugh 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2021 at 2:10 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

I can see your point of view it does take a lot of hard work to become of the position in which you have that amount of votes. It doesn't mean we cannot question or that everyone in that rank has perfect judgement. It isn't safe to assume that.

Absolutely not, you're right - but in that instance you should be raising whether that individual has made the right choice, not an open discussion about negative votes in general like here. 

On 6/9/2021 at 2:10 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

I disagree. Like our system in my current employer we are able to evaluate candidates. However one major difference that adds to the balance is not one person can solely decline a candidate. It's a collective decision there is always going to be someone that has feedback or doesn't think its the right person. Sometimes they are right... Sometimes they are wrong. I am in favor of a majority option.

Which is what we have. I made the point to someone last night that whilst I have been in OD, there have been no instances where someone has been neg voted and failed to pass. In every instance, the person has passed anyway - this is your majority opinion at work. That also in no way devalues the negative aspect the other person has raised.

On 6/9/2021 at 2:10 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

Take a look at each divisions member base. An interesting ask knowing that once promotions are over they are gone? Unless membership changes I'm sure other situations will present and whether we have the conversation now or later is fine. 

No, I am going to need a specific example. I can't argue against hypotheticals, and I certainly can't be the one to go digging in order to support your argument stance. I stand by what I said - saying "what if this person got neg voted" is a moot point, as they didn't, and I know of no exapmles where someone didn't pass after a negative vote. 

On 6/9/2021 at 2:10 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

I can see how the message can get mixed. Like I said in my response to Aern I only thought of it after seeing the recent promotions and looked into it. So again you have a valid point and I don't want to get the message confused I am in favor of neg voting. I too agree that it is a useful tool to provide feedback to our member base as they rise through the ranks. I do also think that it is extremely deterring when someone puts in a ton of work and isn't perfect has a situation or run in with a member or general and gets shot down and one could say tough luck oh well. But I figure there are still ways we can provide feedback without shitting on someone. For Generals promotions each members vote is only worth 1 in either direction.  Ill put some more thought into it to see if I can make sense of this age old topic and I really am trying to look at all angles. 🙂 

I can appreciate that - a lot of times it devolves into hostility, and can appreciate that you haven't done. Bottom line, there is no alternative that I can see working, or that has been presented. People need to be able to give negative feedback if it exists, and they need to be able to vote no, otherwise it isn't a vote. Further to that, they need to be able to scale that according to their viewpoint, so if they feel it warrants -5, -10, -15, then they are allowed to do so. Whether that individual has scaled their negative feedback appropriately is a different question than whether a -15 is ever appropriate. General's Evaluations are different - in a regular promotion, administration have access to a lot of tools and data that helps them decide, more as they climb more ranks. Therefore their viewpoint can be given more weight than Enlisted. However, at an Evaluation, Generals and Commanders have already made their decisions, and they need to know how Enlisted ranks feel about this person at a much more personal level, hence the change in voting structure. 

 

On 6/9/2021 at 2:10 AM, Dabomb(OD) said:

Thanks for your reply Geordie, Aern and Terra I appreciate your perspectives it adds more color to the picture. 

Exactly the same to you, my friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Geordie(OD) said:

Which is what we have. I made the point to someone last night that whilst I have been in OD, there have been no instances where someone has been neg voted and failed to pass. In every instance, the person has passed anyway - this is your majority opinion at work. That also in no way devalues the negative aspect the other person has raised.


This is actually not true. I can raise at least 2 instances where people have been neg voted and failed. 1 being JuJu. The other a warrant officer I can’t remember that was neg voted by Jenkins for not meeting their requirements due to not really being around if I recall correctly. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JD(OD) said:


This is actually not true. I can raise at least 2 instances where people have been neg voted and failed. 1 being JuJu. The other a warrant officer I can’t remember that was neg voted by Jenkins for not meeting their requirements due to not really being around if I recall correctly. 
 

 

I thought JuJu passed? If I'm mistaken I will happily hold my hand up here and take this back. 

I'm not aware of any other time a promotion failed. I was told that the one you are mentioning was actually removed, not failed?

 

EDIT

 

Yeah, regarding JuJu's promotion, I'm an idiot, I can't read months. I saw a month beginning with M in the logs against JuJu's last promotion, and in my head went"yes, that's the time when all the neg voting stuff flared up!"

May is not March, Geordie. 

Sorry @JD(OD)

Edited by Geordie(OD)
I'm an idiot and can't read.
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Geordie(OD) said:

I thought JuJu passed? If I'm mistaken I will happily hold my hand up here and take this back. 

I'm not aware of any other time a promotion failed. I was told that the one you are mentioning was actually removed, not failed?

 

EDIT

 

Yeah, regarding JuJu's promotion, I'm an idiot, I can't read months. I saw a month beginning with M in the logs against JuJu's last promotion, and in my head went"yes, that's the time when all the neg voting stuff flared up!"

May is not March, Geordie. 

Sorry @JD(OD)


Re: the Jenkins vote. I can’t say whether it was removed or not. I’d have to dig through the logs. But the problem is the logs don’t capture data for failed promotions or voting etc…

 

so if it was removed it was done by a General which I would see recorded in our Forum post tracking removal of votes/promotions. 
 

which means if not listed there and it was removed. then Jenkins deleted his vote and the promoter took it down after. 
 

——

 

no need to apologize. We all trip up now and then. I still have to start at January when counting out my months. Time in all forms hurts my brain. Lol

Edited by JD(OD)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like JD stated, the logs aren’t perfect, so the best thing we can do is rely on memory. Over the past ten years, I’ve seen more fail then pass that have had negative votes. Usually someone is put up with a +1 from an enlisted that’s voting on imperfect information. The neg votes come in and the promotion is removed from the waiting list via a request. That happens the majority of the time.
 

The other two options are: member passes promotions with negative votes and member fails promotions with negative votes. I would agree that option one occurs more often then option two. The main factor is if the promotion is a tier rank change. The majority of the time, if the member has something glaring that they need to work on, they will most of the time not pass the tier change because people are throwing their full weight behind the negative vote. On non-changing, the neg votes don’t have as much bite and are a reminder of the things that they have to work on. 
 

In the end, we all want the same goal. To provide the best community for our members. To do that, we must continuously improve. To help each other improve, we have to get honest feedback. Having a worship session on someone’s promotion, when they need to work on something is not going to help them. We help each other by giving the honest feedback and supporting each other to get better. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So go positive vote as much as you feel someone has earned it, and go negative vote as much as you feel someone needs it in order to learn. Be honest with your feedback and let others be honest with theirs. Some people are gonna hate you for it, but if they didn't have a few character flaws then you probably wouldn't be neg voting them to begin with. You'll never convince everyone to accept criticism gracefully, but no one has ever grown as a person by having everything handed to them. It is our hardships that make us wiser and more mature, and sometimes that hardship requires enduring a neg vote, or enduring the loss of a promotion. The worthy will pick themselves up and keep pushing forward.

And as for the vote powers, use what you feel is warranted. A -15 and a -20 is every bit as fair as a +15 and a +20, they are two sides of the same coin. Powerful neg votes seem harsh, and sometimes they are harsh, but trying to shield someone from their own faults in the short term will only hurt them more in the long run. Everyone handles success well, it is how we handle our failures that our true worth as a person becomes apparent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...