No Thanks Suggestion: It should be against the rules for staff to be invisible.

First, I'd like to set the ground rule that this is an open discussion and would highly appreciate it if you did not lock this after reading it and rejecting it like a few other things. I want the communication line to be open. On that note, I am requesting that this stay open until either out of hand or requested.

Now then:

^This

^And this.

^And this.

These are exact words taken from three very prominent and regular users. All quotes have not been edited.

Basically, invisible is doing two things that are just all kinds of wrong.

1. It's making staff unapproachable. If a staff member is hiding, and something urgent is going on, who am I supposed to contact? Just PM a random one and hope they get on first? No, of course not. That's absolutely stupid. It's all ineffective and makes it so one online staff could be completely unaware of a problem. That's not what staff is supposed to do. They're supposed to have a presence on the site, and a very approachable one at that. Invisible status is just counter-productive to that objective.

2. I'm sorry, I didn't know staff was meant to be a secret police. No really, why the hiding? Are you trying to create a 'we are always watching' kind of atmosphere? This is a Kingdom Hearts website. I feel disgusted that I even had to say that.

So, to remedy this, I believe all staff, even you Blues, should be on a visible status. What's the point of those big, bold, and colorful names, after all, if I can't see one?

 

Backing this for reasons already stated in OP.

 

I feel like it's also a matter of community building. I felt like my largest failing as a staff member was that I wasn't a tangible presence. I didn't try hard enough to bring together the community and be a part of it and that was reinforced by the fact that no one could see when I was on, what I was looking at or what in god's name I was doing. I feel like staff members should be there both to show that they're watching and to show that they're accessible and there when they are needed. It helps people put trust in staff and get along with them. I hate to put a double standard on a group of people who are doing this out of the good of their hearts, but staff needs to be more, do more, than ordinary members like me.

 

I agree and I disagree.

I agree with the reasons stated. They signed up for the position and should be a visible presence. However, I disagree that it should be against the rules for them to be invisible. And the cop comparison is rather poor as our staff are more like volunteers whereas a police officer is a paying job.

Perhaps there should be at least one visible Admin at all times? They might elect to be invisible when they can't really devote time outside of simple browsing. Perhaps they're doing homework or some other such stuff at the time. We all have reasons for wanting to be invisible.

I know the Super Mods and Sectional Mods are fairly visible. If an admin is not available, why not message one of them? They'd be able to pass the report on to an Admin if they are not able to perform the task needed at least.

I'm on the fence with this one.

 

All of this^ Rep'd.

 

First of all, how many staff members are actually invisible? You told over half of them in our MSN convo but I'm skeptical because I see most of them online. I feel that we shouldn't require them to be visible. People are entitled to their privacy and if they don't want to be seen for whatever reason then they should have that option. What's preventing us from just sending them a PM when something happening and waiting for them to respond? Nothing on this forum is instantaneous like it is on a chat client so we're going to have to wait a bit or maybe a lot for a response anyway. More often than not, a staff member is on and visible so what's preventing us from contacting that one to see if they can do something? Or maybe they could relay it to somebody else who can help? I personally think that this is being exaggerated in that not many staff members set themselves to invisible and most who do are usually away and want to discourage people from contacting them because they don't have the time.

 

As far as the PM'ing thing goes, if I can't see a blue on, then you have to see that it's a gamble to which I'm informing and which will be the most responsive. If it's urgent, then that gamble could effect just how far a situation goes.

Also, Jiku's post is so much truth that I'm just going to refer you to her quotes.

And as I said, even if it's just one, it's still a problem.

It's still one less person I can contact (what if it's a mod and it's not their section, but the other red/purple/blue is on invisible? Why would I even PM someone if it's not their section? Nothing will get accomplished other than waiting for someone to get online. BUT TURNS OUT THEY WERE ONLINE).

 

I actually do take up a position similar to Lawrence_Fox. I just feel like I lean more towards having a policy or at least a recommendation if not a slightly less black and white rule. Just clarifying, I understand that staff can't always help and shouldn't give people false impressions.

 

You seem to forget that there are super moderators out there. Who are capable of doing most of the things that the admins can. There aren't many situations that a super mod can't handle that an admin can.

 

That's fine, but if they're logged in, what're they doing where they can't do their jobs? (not sarcasm nor derogatory, neither is the rest of this). Like, if they're on, they're portraying the role of staff. If I clock in for work somewhere, just because I brought homework doesn't mean I'm exempt from ringing out a phone.

 

I'm in support of this, but i guess it's pretty obvious since I'm quoted in the OP.

 

I don't know, I mean we certainly use it but I don't have a sense that most of us use it that often. I can usually find at least one visible staff. Though I guess staff should be discouraged from using invisible,especially when they are the only one on.

It might also be nice to create a general feedback type form like how we've done surveys and apps, but just an open box to send things to the staff as a whole and not specific ones. That would solve the problem of people not being on even when we aren't on.


As a side note my being invisible is usually a feeble attempt to make this place less distracting so I can get to work when I've fallen way way behind on it (sorry people)

 

I am never on invisible. I've personally never used the feature before and I don't plan to.

But that's just me. I'm not going to require my team members to be always visible; if they're always set on invisible that's one thing, but if they're just using it because they'd rather not be contacted, they have every right to. We needn't be "always available"--except during odd hours of the night when we're sleeping, there's almost always at least one staff member online. We are volunteers and should reserve the right to privacy, regardless of our status.

If you really need to get into contact with a staff member and see none online, you have a number of options.

1. Check Skype or MSN.
2. Email someone.
3. Press the report button--an email will be sent to every Sectional Moderator with power in that section, every Super Moderator, and every Administrator.
4. PM the entire staff.

And so on. It's really not that difficult to get in touch with us. I don't really see how online indicators can affect that? If it's pressing, there are ways to find people. But I don't think it's at all unreasonable for us to want to lurk unseen--something that every member has a right to--and perhaps deter people from contacting us about non-serious or pressing matters.

Edit: Oh, and being able to see invisible members, I would say really only three or four staff members use the feature, and most of them are not on "always invisible."

 

I was talking about cases where they log in temporarily, maybe for a couple minutes and then logging off. The site doesn't refresh for another 15 minutes or show to show them as offline so it's a bit misleading.

 

I don't really think it's that big of a deal. We have 5 (unless I miscounted) staff members (and I included all positions: mods, super-mods, admins, reporters, and coders) that are on invisible mode. That's not that high of a number. I'm pretty sure it came out to 1 admin, 1 super-mod, 1 reporter, and 2 sec-mods. God bless our reporters for the news they bring and the content they record, but I can't really see what would be so urgent that we need an immediate response aside from "I found news that isn't reported yet!" But they've always been really quick with news and, even so, I don't think being late a few times is too big of a deal.
As for admins, there's really nothing that's such a big deal, only an admin can respond right away. In all honesty, RvR uses invisible mode, I think, and he's not the most...out-there person on the forum anyway. He's much more a behind-the-scenes kind of guy.
Supermods, there's still 3 left.
Mods? There's plenty left.

Honestly, I don't think the number of invisi-staff is so high that it warrants them to be required to be online. Even in situations where we need staff, the situations where we need them immediately are a bit scarce and even then, there's plenty still plenty of staff around. Some of the staff we have are more approachable than others, regardless of visible status. Jiku's not the type (no offense, Jiku) that a newer member would approach (some may find you intimidating) given a problem. Same for other staff; some are just more approachable.

Like Laurence said, it's not a paid job. Why make them live by an exclusive rule?

 

That's around 1/3 of the staff though (I'm not counting reporters in this).

 

So, if a volunteer fireman has a call for a fire, but is busy with his family, he shouldn't go aid in putting out the fire because he's only a volunteer? I'm sorry if that analogy seems like an extremity, but you guys DO put out virtual, verbal fires. If you're needed, you gotta do your job. If not, don't show up for work. You can reserve the right to privacy, but you can also reserve the right to hide form the community. They go hand in hand, it's just which is more important, productive, and effective.

IT IS hard to get a hold of you guys. No, really. Makaze once brought a topic to you on MSN personally ANNNND VM'd you. He NEVER got a response. I know that sh*t was on purpose to avoid the stress of the debate, but that's still crap. And what if I'm a user in the middle of being bullied, yet I lack MSN, Skype, and just can't deal with the impersonal nature of the report button that usually just involves a lot of praying that something happens without any answers other than to continue being harassed.

And why would I EVER PM the entire staff? That's just asking to get grouped on.

 

>"Only five members use invisible"

Ya know, it's only a small number when you ignore what it's in comparison with....

 

Okay, let us try the best of both worlds.

I believe that staff should be allowed to be invisible, since an all-staff invisible clause would be unnecessary, primarily for the reasons GS and Misty have stated. However, at the same time, perhaps any staff being invisible without a good reason for being invisible should be discouraged for the reasons stated in the OP and Jiku's post. That way, staff continue to have the same liberties while being more approachable.