Yes, the Vintage Staff Hat. Now 20% off with the Voucher.Does the voucher give you discount rates on staff application merchandise?
Vintage Staff Hat - Level 9001 Hat.
Bans player killed by hat-wearing staff member.
Changing "Reference"
- Thread starter Defiant_Blob
- Start date
- Status
Vintage Staff Hat - Level 9001 Hat.
Bans player killed by hat-wearing staff member.
A change in name to something more easily understood. If I asked a 5 year old what a backer/voucher is and what a reference is, chances are they'll know backer/voucher more often than reference.
How exactly does it cause confusion?Now I'm thinking it should just stay the way it is.
Changing it will just cause confusion, not just to those who already know what a reference is, but quite possibly even to those who don't.
It may just help if we keep it as "Reference".
Chances are that they are 5, and wont know what any of them are. Being realistic leads to the answer, if a 12 year old was to join, most people think that 'voucher' is something you'd use in a shop. Backer would be something they'd not understand, reference is the only 'realistic' term that people use.
For example, your school head an give you a reference to a college so you can apply with a reference; which is infact, very relate-able to this community. User asks for reference, gets reference, applies.
If it's so understood, why do so many applicants not know what it means?
I never said it was so understood, just that more people know what that means then the other 2 that were suggested. Users may not have learnt what a 'reference' is due to being too young and not learning about it during school when they are taught about jobs, etc. That is something that we cannot help; unless a format was changed and it specifically said what a reference is and how to get one. If they continue to apply even when that is there, then It would end up being their own fault.
Backer and voucher aren't the only options. There are others as well (supporting staff).
But I'm pretty sure most people I know learned the word backer before reference.
However, then what of supporting staff? Most easily understood of all.
I think the main confusion with "reference" is that some people assume that because an Op had reffered them to make an application that they have their reference. In my opinion the term "sponsor" instead of "reference" would reduce confusion and make it easier to understand across the board.
I guess I'm really late to this, but I'll add my input either way since it's still a fresh topic.
Arguments have been brought up supporting the name change saying basically that we can lower confusion by making it something more well known. The staff that Blocktopia wants and needs probably will not be found in people that can not understand our application process or even our application terms, which currently mirror the real world. If people applying do not understand and get denied instantly, they can go on said server/send a PM to a staff member to find out what happened and how they can fix it.
Changing a name that has most likely been around longer than 95% of the community is going to take a while to catch on, and still not all people will use it, especially returning members, such as, for example, Jaekza. It seems like a lot of needless effort just to do something that is meant to be helpful, but can cause equal or more confusion for players.
So I guess you could say I -1 this
Arguments have been brought up supporting the name change saying basically that we can lower confusion by making it something more well known. The staff that Blocktopia wants and needs probably will not be found in people that can not understand our application process or even our application terms, which currently mirror the real world. If people applying do not understand and get denied instantly, they can go on said server/send a PM to a staff member to find out what happened and how they can fix it.
Changing a name that has most likely been around longer than 95% of the community is going to take a while to catch on, and still not all people will use it, especially returning members, such as, for example, Jaekza. It seems like a lot of needless effort just to do something that is meant to be helpful, but can cause equal or more confusion for players.
So I guess you could say I -1 this
I quote this.I guess I'm really late to this, but I'll add my input either way since it's still a fresh topic.
Arguments have been brought up supporting the name change saying basically that we can lower confusion by making it something more well known. The staff that Blocktopia wants and needs probably will not be found in people that can not understand our application process or even our application terms, which currently mirror the real world. If people applying do not understand and get denied instantly, they can go on said server/send a PM to a staff member to find out what happened and how they can fix it.
Changing a name that has most likely been around longer than 95% of the community is going to take a while to catch on, and still not all people will use it, especially returning members, such as, for example, Jaekza. It seems like a lot of needless effort just to do something that is meant to be helpful, but can cause equal or more confusion for players.
So I guess you could say I -1 this
You keep saying it might confuse. I don't see how at all. Please explain.
It's hardly fair to say that because they misunderstood reference that they aren't staff material, as I'm sure you're talking of a nice portion of staff. Or am I not good for staff? As I misunderstood it as well. Along with some others, and probably other staff.I guess I'm really late to this, but I'll add my input either way since it's still a fresh topic.
Arguments have been brought up supporting the name change saying basically that we can lower confusion by making it something more well known. The staff that Blocktopia wants and needs probably will not be found in people that can not understand our application process or even our application terms, which currently mirror the real world. If people applying do not understand and get denied instantly, they can go on said server/send a PM to a staff member to find out what happened and how they can fix it.
Changing a name that has most likely been around longer than 95% of the community is going to take a while to catch on, and still not all people will use it, especially returning members, such as, for example, Jaekza. It seems like a lot of needless effort just to do something that is meant to be helpful, but can cause equal or more confusion for players.
So I guess you could say I -1 this
You say that people who misunderstand it aren't good for staff, but tons of capable players misunderstand it.
And yes, players can PM staff. But why not make it so they don't have to? If tons of players are having to PM staff over one thing, I'd think that qualifies for a change.
As well, this really won't take long to catch on. Only players applying and staff should need to know about it, and applying players will be able to read the application and understand this more common term. Staff's job is to keep up-to-date to changes in the community.
Returning members will use it, as I'd assume they'd read the application to apply.
You say it's needless effort, but it takes all of 5 to 10 minutes. Hardly an effort.
And then you say it will confuse, but I hardly see how it will confuse, when "reference" seems to confuse every 3rd applicant.
Anyway you put it people will get confused.Considering its been this way for a long time why change it?Also in a real life job application its called a reference so if their getting confused I don't know why.
This idea has its Pro's and Con's, as does pretty much every idea ever conceived.
I want to say the initial concept is good, but there are many under-lying concepts that greatly appose the change, many which have already been spoken and applied here.
---
First off:
Your defense to change the word "reference," is to reduce the confusion for a minority of players that, for the most part, do not understand the meaning of how we use reference in the community, or the definition itself, by possibly changing the word
---
I know originally I did not know the meaning of reference, though I had no interest at the time to become a staff member. However, to discover the meaning, I merely asked questions and looked up the definition in a dictionary.
Is it that bad, that we cannot rely on those who are applying to possibly take, perhaps 2 to 3 minutes out of their time to possibly, ask one of our many, available operators to possibly clarify on the referencing process / if they are indeed referencing them? Or even look up the definition if they do not understand the idea furthermore?
And even if they don't and continue on with the incomplete application, it doesn't take that much effort either to merely correct the applicant, and we can encourage them to try again when they get the required information.
If they can't do any of these things, or even follow up after we explain, then I must agree with Jayfeather and say that they aren't entirely up to the task of being a staff member, despite how unkind that may sound.
---
Second:
I don't think changing the word to "Backer" or "Voucher" will change anything. Before writing this, I wanted to test the names with my two younger cousins, ages 5 and 7. They either thought the notion of a backer, is a friend watching out for you, or a player in a sport, such as American Football. On the idea for voucher, both decided on a sort of ticket, or a kind of brochure (though wrong). Although there are many others words people can come up with, changing the word from "reference" may very well cause more confusion among both old, and especially newer players, as one of these new words will need extra explaining, unlike reference will normally only takes a sentence or two.
---
It seems I am indeed leaning toward leaving reference as it is, mainly because of all the explaining I did above...
Although I feel it has good intentions, and could potentially help some confusion...
The confusion can easily be fixed through physical means which we provide.
I think what I just stated above was already stated heavily in the previous posts in this thread, I don't think they were entirely explained.
Hope this helps the idea / thread along--- somewhat.
I want to say the initial concept is good, but there are many under-lying concepts that greatly appose the change, many which have already been spoken and applied here.
---
First off:
Your defense to change the word "reference," is to reduce the confusion for a minority of players that, for the most part, do not understand the meaning of how we use reference in the community, or the definition itself, by possibly changing the word
---
I know originally I did not know the meaning of reference, though I had no interest at the time to become a staff member. However, to discover the meaning, I merely asked questions and looked up the definition in a dictionary.
Is it that bad, that we cannot rely on those who are applying to possibly take, perhaps 2 to 3 minutes out of their time to possibly, ask one of our many, available operators to possibly clarify on the referencing process / if they are indeed referencing them? Or even look up the definition if they do not understand the idea furthermore?
And even if they don't and continue on with the incomplete application, it doesn't take that much effort either to merely correct the applicant, and we can encourage them to try again when they get the required information.
If they can't do any of these things, or even follow up after we explain, then I must agree with Jayfeather and say that they aren't entirely up to the task of being a staff member, despite how unkind that may sound.
---
Second:
I don't think changing the word to "Backer" or "Voucher" will change anything. Before writing this, I wanted to test the names with my two younger cousins, ages 5 and 7. They either thought the notion of a backer, is a friend watching out for you, or a player in a sport, such as American Football. On the idea for voucher, both decided on a sort of ticket, or a kind of brochure (though wrong). Although there are many others words people can come up with, changing the word from "reference" may very well cause more confusion among both old, and especially newer players, as one of these new words will need extra explaining, unlike reference will normally only takes a sentence or two.
---
It seems I am indeed leaning toward leaving reference as it is, mainly because of all the explaining I did above...
Although I feel it has good intentions, and could potentially help some confusion...
The confusion can easily be fixed through physical means which we provide.
I think what I just stated above was already stated heavily in the previous posts in this thread, I don't think they were entirely explained.
Hope this helps the idea / thread along--- somewhat.
Basically, what I'm getting from this, is if the person who makes an application doesn't know what reference is, or gets a different meaning from it, should take his/her time to look up the definition, or at least ask one of the staff. If they're applying to put their own effort into helping the server, they should put effort into their staff application, too. 
Better worded then how I put it---Basically, what I'm getting from this, is if the person who makes an application doesn't know what reference is, or gets a different meaning from it, should take his/her time to look up the definition, or at least ask one of the staff. If they're applying to put their own effort into helping the server, they should put effort into their staff application, too.
But that's about the gist of it.
That's how we want players to feel. As staff, we don't want to come off as scary power-abusing command spammers who ban anyone who puts a foot out of line. We want to be known as friendly figures of authority who are supportive of applications. I rarely give out -1s unless the application is of absolutely terrible quality.
Of course we, as staff, should be friendly. The point I was getting at however, is that backer is not that great of a word to replace the word "reference." If you think of a backer as someone who watches your back, you could think of that person as perhaps a side-kick or person who watches for danger to protect you, like in a movie or in real life.
(As well as other examples), and that very well does not appear as a good way for us to define "backer" if it replaces "reference" (which I doubt).
I stated that because I do not see "backer" as a good alternative for reference. Obviously this can go on a person by person basis depending on their outlook on how they see backer as, however, that was my thought on it.
What is there not to understand about reference? Its commonly used word that everyone should know the meaning to. Like Duffie said you can look the word up in a dictionary if you really have no clue what it means.So I see no reason to change the word plus this arguing is getting us nowhere.
1. Players just don't know what "reference" means.
2. Players believe the staff have to refer them without asking.
3. Players believe that if staff shows them an app it's a reference.
4. Players believe that they can place staff they believe that'd refer them.
5. Other situations I've forgotten to mention.
- Status