| Author |
Message |
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Nov 2007 13:13
Reply
To be hoenst Shane, most rewards require departmental activity, and almost all get awarded to those in departments... 
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Nov 2007 14:17
Reply
Quoting: polson f people are joining departments simply to be promoted, I'd seriously question their contributions.
My experience with those guys is that they'll contribute for a few weeks and then slack off, and eventually get kicked out. Don't worry, I never recommended anyone like that and I doubt anyone else does.  I'd be more likely to throw them out than to recommend them.
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Nov 2007 14:43
Reply
Bria...I applaud thee!!
|
sg8472
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Nov 2007 17:18
Reply
Andrew, some are, but not all. And almost all get awarded are those in departments because most people do join departments when they're eligible to do so, so they may continue up the ranks and contribute to OTF in other, more specific ways. Other than that, I think Svenja said everything else in an earlier post where she expressed a similar view as mine.
But, I think, for the most part, we're all in agreement here. Promotions should not be given out for just coming to chat and being there, and taking advantage of the fact that it's a chatroom. But the criteria for promotions should be a little more flexible, and not be so focused on contributions through a department.
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Nov 2007 18:24
Reply
Agreed, Shane. And I don't advocate giving them out left right and centre to anyone who hangs around for a few month. But definitely make the system more flexible to allow for people who buck the trend to be rewarded *l*
|
sg8472
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Nov 2007 18:31
Reply
Well, hallelujah! Now, let's lock the thread before we go off on another tangent.  
|
buck_murray
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Nov 2007 22:18
Reply
Yes. lock the thread already. Please
|
daecrist
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Nov 2007 12:49
Reply
I refuse to lock this thread on the grounds that the last thread I locked just resulted in more griping. Stew in the mess you have made! Mwahah! 
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Nov 2007 13:16
Reply
If we're making stew, I'll bring the turnips and the bay leaves!
|
majin_fett
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Nov 2007 13:29
Reply
*shakes his fist* You'll get griping from us if you don't lock it! 
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Nov 2007 13:54
Reply
We can gripe about pretty much anything.
|
buck_murray
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Nov 2007 15:21
Reply
We outnumber you Daecrist. And I have annoyed enough people about my problems. Lock the blasted thing.
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Nov 2007 16:36
Reply
I have not yet begun to annoy!
|
sg8472
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Nov 2007 16:44
Reply
I care not whether it's locked or remains open. I was just trying to be amusing.
*lol*
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Nov 2007 18:27
Reply
Keep it open 
|
darth_balco
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Nov 2007 22:12
Reply
Survey Says....*DING* Keep it Open! \o/
|
buck_murray
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Nov 2007 22:21
Reply
Well then
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Nov 2007 09:35
Reply
Wait...but then what will we gripe about?
|
daecrist
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Nov 2007 10:17
Reply
How about that HAL sonuva*****?
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Nov 2007 12:07
Reply
You know what I'd propose? A monthly argument. You know, pick a topic and let people argue about. Entirely inconsequential to the actual running of OTF, etc. Because I mean, first we argue about the premature locking of threads, then about promotions, and then when all's been said we argue about locking the thread. If you just decide on a topic (that'd be the first topic: what topic shall we argue about next month?) then we can just argue about that.
Maybe then we won't have to argue about silly things. Or we could, but at least we'd KNOW that they're silly.
I think it's a good idea!
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Nov 2007 12:12
Reply
Actually I really like that idea. Let's do it!
|
buck_murray
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Nov 2007 15:00
Reply
We would still find a way to argue about random stupid stuff.
|
bria
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Nov 2007 17:58
Reply
I do that with everyone. Especially with people I care about. As long as you keep in mind that it's random and stupid, and maintain a little distance, thus not taking it to heart - it's all good!
|
buck_murray
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Nov 2007 20:20
Reply
Tang
|
darth_balco
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Nov 2007 22:27
Reply
You know what we should argue about? Graham Chex! Why don't they make that anymore, it's no fair!!! I LOVED that cereal!
|
buck_murray
Member
|
# Posted: 9 Nov 2007 02:16
Reply
Nothing can beat CoooOOOkie crisp!
|
monny
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Nov 2007 03:36
Reply
Quoting: Feeble There is very little reward for anyone who doesn't fit the promotion criteria. Sure we can get 'awards' but, there's only so many little .gifs you can get before you get fed up with them. Either promotions need to be downplayed, or there needs to be further thought on how people contribute to this place without departments, or it needs to be easier for people to do stuff /for/ departments.
Yeah my sweet Feebs you are so right as always.
(I miss you, ya know  )
I think OTF can take a chill pill without losing it's itegrity.
|
Feeble
Moderator
|
# Posted: 21 Nov 2007 00:18
Reply
monny
Quoting: monny (I miss you, ya know )
Missing you too beautiful lady! And the 'good old days'... *sigh*
|
master_chief
Member
|
# Posted: 29 Apr 2008 00:22
Reply
I think the problem here is dedication and producable, and measurable, results. As for the originator of this thread, in the Navy you get promotions because you can lead, affect change, and produce results... not because you've been in a certain amount of times etc. I agree that if one has been in for a long time and shown consistent results then some measure should be taken to allow flexibility for this person to be awarded a cl increase but only on a case-by-case basis. I think the standard will change and the team infrastructure will cause that to be more evident and the production will be more of a stronger symbol to claim this person as an asset to the community and worthy of that higher position which deems more responsibility.
|
