Maybe the solution to this problem is to put up a thread explaing references in depth.Explaining how they work and that they just can't put random names of people who they think would reference them in their application.
Changing "Reference"
- Thread starter Defiant_Blob
- Start date
- Status
Yeah I suppose your right then I think we should keep it how it is because I believe you'll find people will be doing the same thing with a different word.Or maybe we should make the question "Would any Staff reference you?" go more in depth about it.
I'm not against changing it I'm just concerened that we might confuse people more if we use the wrong word.That still leaves out the points I just made. Players get different ideas about what "reference" means.
Why are you so against just changing 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.
Is what I meant to say, I did make my post a little aggressive on accident.
If lots of players are having to do this, then we should fix it. It's like writing part of the app in another language and saying "translate it or you're too lazy to be staff". If lots of players get confused over a new rule, should we fix it or force them to ask staff about it every single time?
Players will be much less confused by supporting staff than reference.
If you do look at perhaps every third, or even just a couple applications in any of our servers app' threads, you will find both players who understand reference, and yes, there are also Many players / applicants who fail to understand reference.
However: From what I have seen, much of these players (Who do not give references / understand it), after applying for Trusted / any staff position, and are declined, seem to leave the community or "vanish." Perhaps they return at a later date, sometimes they may go to a different community, we can never know. Some of these players also do not tend to fill out the entire Staff Application, and merely ask to be trusted.
I know your goal for this idea is simply to confusion among players who apply, even if it is a small amount of confusion destroyed...
Even if we do change reference, there will always be applicants and applications that still do not understand the word / definition / explanation, and we cannot fully stop that.
If it's not broken, then we don't need to fix it entirely. Reference is a highly reliable word for us in Blocktopia, as is in many other communities / the real world. I agree, that the most effective means to reduce this confusion is to possibly add a short explanation to reference.
EDIT: Also-----
Supporting Staff sounds like the supporting actors / crew in a film, game-production, or etc. You can have staff who support you, but don't necessarily are / want to reference you to become staff. When we explain to players on how to become trusted / staff, we tend to encourage them to strive for staff if they really like the community and want to make a difference in it and support it. Will players get confused by "Supporting Staff" by staff who merely encouraged them, which indeed sounds like support from them but is not entirely a reference? Most likely.
You just called a good amount of staff not staff worthy. I myself didn't understand it at first. My bad, shall I resign?
Like I've explained, lots of current and ex staff have misunderstood.
And I've already explained there will still be people who misunderstand. America has an illegal immigration problem. They have a fix that will reduce it by 10%, and is very inexpensive and easy to make. Should they not use it because it won't eliminate all of it, and immigrants can still get in illegally?
And you say if it's not broken, don't fix it. Suppose we used to vote via posts on a thread rather than Google Doc forms. It worked fine. Therefore, we shouldn't try to better it by changing to Google Docs, right?
If not "supporting staff", suggest a new name. I've chosen 4 words so far from a language that has millions.
Re-reading the entire thread...
I've realized that BOTH sides of the argument, and most of the posts in this thread (including myself's) is just repeating the same argument, just with different wording, and a different point of view.
It seems it's just going around in circles a bit.
I've realized that BOTH sides of the argument, and most of the posts in this thread (including myself's) is just repeating the same argument, just with different wording, and a different point of view.
It seems it's just going around in circles a bit.
Enough bickering.
Defiant_Blob Take a few days break form this thread so you can look at the idea with fresh eyes. You're currently stuck in one thought process and need to think of other things for a bit.
Defiant_Blob Take a few days break form this thread so you can look at the idea with fresh eyes. You're currently stuck in one thought process and need to think of other things for a bit.
Frankly, I'm mostly annoyed at the people who think that if one doesn't understand it, they aren't fit to be staff.
And those who think that since it doesn't help all people, it isn't worth the small effort.
Especially since I've explained it maybe 5 or 6 times. :/
I'm reopening this thread on the condition that all arguing about whether or not to change the term stops. Each side has made it's case multiple times, and will gain nothing from staying at each others throats. You've gained the attention of the head staff, so from this point on assume that the change will be accepted. Come up with various terms that could be used, and the ways they might be misinterpreted. Lets see if we can find a universally good term.
'Backer' - players may think that this is American Football.
'Supporting Staff' - Hmm... not much.
'Staff who can vouch for your abilities' - A little long winded but gets the point across.
'Supporting Staff' - Hmm... not much.
'Staff who can vouch for your abilities' - A little long winded but gets the point across.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/Backer?s=t
http://thesaurus.com/browse/Supporter?s=t
A lot of those words from these lists.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/Supporter?s=t
A lot of those words from these lists.
Why change at all really? I mean, how hard is it to tell someone you didn't actually reference them anyway? 
but, if you do end up changing it, I suggest "supporting staff" because it's short, and grammatically, it can't be used in as many ways as "reference" can, making it less confusing for said applicants.
and yes trngl3087 I totally just stole your suggestion and shortened it. :3
but, if you do end up changing it, I suggest "supporting staff" because it's short, and grammatically, it can't be used in as many ways as "reference" can, making it less confusing for said applicants.
and yes trngl3087 I totally just stole your suggestion and shortened it. :3
From the recent posts, it seems we are still repeating some of the older suggestions.
I still believe the best choice is just to keep reference, but add a short description of reference / synonyms that we have been stating in this thread. It seems like a good compromise as there are people who believe that reference should not be changed, and people who do want it to be changed.
An Example:
What Operators Referenced you? (Staff members that have agreed to support your application, Backers, Supporting Staff, etc): This person and This person, That Person, etc.
A compromise would most likely be the best change. Reference needed a bit of a description anyways to explain more of what it is, then how it is explained currently. Yes, sometimes change is for the better, however, much of the time, it can cause just as much confusion if not explained correctly, much like it seems reference has.
Adding a more in-depth but concise description will most likely lessen some confusion, while we keep the original word "reference." It will most likely make both parties in this argument happy, as it mostly fulfills their points. It will keep the original word we and much of the world has been using, while lessening the confusion for some / or newer players that are thinking of becoming a staff member on the server.
- Status