STAFF-ROOM CHAT

[Impy 460]

For my piece in this, I think some of the requirements have creeped into the realm of excessive.

I’ve included some of the following examples of how AAP used to operate.

For mine and Huck’s Most Outstanding, we each got 10 witnesses, included two Board members (Jess and Fuzzy).

For Chickens OS Level 2, he got 5 nominations from peers, not any superiors.

For Payton’s OS Level 1, he got four witnesses, from a Divisional 7, a General, an officer, and a member.

All of these requests were awarded. Many of the witnesses were more emotional or less fact based.

These show the point of the AAP. It’s a department for rewarding people for volunteering their time in KSI and making them feel good about it.

TexAngel and Ronin each won OTYs and have 7+ witnesses, including 2 Board members... for OS LEVEL ONE and TWO.

The standards of AAP should, in my opinion, reflect the attitude of the “older school” AAP. Please take a look at the following nominations and consider being more leinant to help improve the morale and involvement of the community.

All the following people deserved the awards they got (except me maybe), but under current guidelines and protocol, not a single one of them would have been awarded with what was posted, unfortunately.

Let’s not lose sight of why this department exists. If we do, we absolutely need to reset the standards and restart.

 

 

 

 

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

Everyone be sure to read all of that and post thoughts here, I for one am with Impy and think we need to focus more on wanting to hand out awards to people and not look for tiny details to send them away. 

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

I'm sure you've all read this, if you have thoughts or comments and dont want to share here PM me or hit me up on discord.

[KSI Airborne 7 565]

I thought we weren'tdoing retoractive awards. Ghandi's awards for time of service are not for his current time in kSI

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

2 hours ago, Airborne 7 said:

I thought we weren'tdoing retoractive awards. Ghandi's awards for time of service are not for his current time in kSI

They're not so much retroactive imo because theyre are running along the work he his/has done recently. Votes are purely opinion based so if you guys vote majority no then its a no.

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

Fuzzy has posted up cleaned up rules make sure you guys read them so we are all on the same page going forward.

[Finally FaIIout 99]

20 minutes ago, KSI RiiOT 7 said:

Fuzzy has posted up cleaned up rules make sure you guys read them so we are all on the same page going forward.

Sweet!

[KSI Airborne 7 565]

Also, now we are taking the inital post for a time in service award as witness? Can we please at least have a discussion amongst the staff again if things arent going to be how they have been? We did things a certain way, and now I feel like it is changing without any real explanations going on. All I am asking is to be notified of changes as well, so when I post I am posting correctly, and not making the department look bad.

[Scotland 523]

I am awaiting a response to a message I have sent, then I’ll see if I need to hop in here. 

[I am FuzzyMeep™ 701]

2 hours ago, Airborne 7 said:

Also, now we are taking the inital post for a time in service award as witness? Can we please at least have a discussion amongst the staff again if things arent going to be how they have been? We did things a certain way, and now I feel like it is changing without any real explanations going on. All I am asking is to be notified of changes as well, so when I post I am posting correctly, and not making the department look bad.

Well i made a suggestion to use some (most) nominations as witness's if it could be... I.E Senior director stating a member was in for a year should be as believable as them posting and a rando coming in saying its legit...but remember i did just make a suggestion

 

Also that rule you reference is not written anywhere, so i would like it changed or added to the rules. we have three different editions of the rules in that topic, and a nom cant be witness rule that has existed for 5 years and yet has never been posted anywhere, there was a reason that i and a lot of people didnt know it exists, thats because it doesnt outside of peoples gained knowledge.I 

I have made no changes, just suggestions. if you feel the AAP runs perfect and has no room for improvement that is your opinion but dont mistake me wanting to open a dialog to figure out what can be improved and why so many divisions avoid this dept as me changing things. Something has to be different before it is considered hanged 

Also for that topic i made, if you read it...they are just yalls rules, i just removed the double and triple posts. nothing is different in that post from what you all use now...i just dont feel like you guys need three different versions of that same rules each one being slightly different then the last, so i took the most recent version

[Finally FaIIout 99]

13 minutes ago, I am FuzzyMeep™ said:

Well i made a suggestion to use some (most) nominations as witness's if it could be... I.E Senior director stating a member was in for a year should be as believable as them posting and a rando coming in saying its legit...but remember i did just make a suggestion

 

Also that rule you reference is not written anywhere, so i would like it changed or added to the rules. we have three different editions of the rules in that topic, and a nom cant be witness rule that has existed for 5 years and yet has never been posted anywhere, there was a reason that i and a lot of people didnt know it exists, thats because it doesnt outside of peoples gained knowledge.

 

I have made no changes, just suggestions. if you feel the AAP runs perfect and has no room for improvement that is your opinion but dont mistake me wanting to open a dialog to figure out what can be improved and why so many divisions avoid this dept as me changing things. Something has to be different before it is considered hanged 

Also for that topic i made, if you read it...they are just yalls rules, i just removed the double and triple posts. nothing is different in that post from what you all use now...i just dont feel like you guys need three different versions of that same rules each one being slightly different then the last, so i took the most recent version

Yes I can I see why you'd like that added to the rules while I don't hop in these conversations much or might not be the most active member of AAP I will say that people sometimes talk to me and still consider things like the OTM's to be favoritized and the fact is if a division has a lot of nominations that are really good and supported then we will vote for them and I'll try to inform said person and show them the process so that they will hopefully understand better and be able to answer questions other members may ask tailored to AAP because there are very few of us. Because of the very few of us we need to make sure the information we get out is heavily detailed and organized so that members may understand. Both the OTM's and OTY's I've had to back up and support showing we did our personal best to take in all nominations and vote for who we think is best. As of the most recent OTM I know I didn't write why I chose the people I voted for (I should have but... I have to fix my schedule because it causes the most problems overall in life to me. Changing my schedule just never happens since I'm very stubborn but it's slowly fixing) now I partially regret I didn't do so as I could have just been rushing and agreeing with whoever the majority voted for. That's sort of a different issue on its own so... back to what I'm just sort of ranting on :p. Basically we should add the rule of either allowing the first nomination as a witness or not doing so or whatever we are doing. I say we should do so as it isn't anywhere and the only reason I know is because awhile back me Scotland and Emmy went over an OS and how it works and it was the mentioned the person who makes the topic and writes a nomination doesn't count as a witness. All in all sorry if this is scrambled but I'm mainly writing down what comes up but I like the change as if we make AAP more detailed and explain it better maybe it won't be looked at for the wrong reasons. That's all that I can think of really and I hope it helps and I hope it's organized enough so it isn't too confusing.

[Scotland 523]

6 minutes ago, Finally FaIIout said:

Yes I can I see why you'd like that added to the rules while I don't hop in these conversations much or might not be the most active member of AAP I will say that people sometimes talk to me and still consider things like the OTM's to be favoritized and the fact is if a division has a lot of nominations that are really good and supported then we will vote for them and I'll try to inform said person and show them the process so that they will hopefully understand better and be able to answer questions other members may ask tailored to AAP because there are very few of us. Because of the very few of us we need to make sure the information we get out is heavily detailed and organized so that members may understand. Both the OTM's and OTY's I've had to back up and support showing we did our personal best to take in all nominations and vote for who we think is best. As of the most recent OTM I know I didn't write why I chose the people I voted for (I should have but... I have to fix my schedule because it causes the most problems overall in life to me. Changing my schedule just never happens since I'm very stubborn but it's slowly fixing) now I partially regret I didn't do so as I could have just been rushing and agreeing with whoever the majority voted for. That's sort of a different issue on its own so... back to what I'm just sort of ranting on :p. Basically we should add the rule of either allowing the first nomination as a witness or not doing so or whatever we are doing. I say we should do so as it isn't anywhere and the only reason I know is because awhile back me Scotland and Emmy went over an OS and how it works and it was the mentioned the person who makes the topic and writes a nomination doesn't count as a witness. All in all sorry if this is scrambled but I'm mainly writing down what comes up but I like the change as if we make AAP more detailed and explain it better maybe it won't be looked at for the wrong reasons. That's all that I can think of really and I hope it helps and I hope it's organized enough so it isn't too confusing.

Not to worry.

I will be working out these kinks very shortly with Riiot. It wont be any major changes so dont worry about anything lil buddy

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

As far as favouritism in OTM/OTY goes they have to understand we can only go on the evidence we've been provided, one person may have many many nominations but if they are weak wont get it.  It's always been quality over quantity.

 

But that will always be a problem always has, someone doesnt win gets butt hurt and cries favouritism 

[I am FuzzyMeep™ 701]

I agree with a lot of that, the OTM and OTY's have been done exceptionally well for the last several years, people will always cry favortism because that is what they do lol same from this place opened, will be the same to the last day a nom goes through, it is just how it works.

 

and as far as OS...if someone writes something amazing for someone why would it not count...why would i post up thinking someone deserves an award like that if i didnt care ya know...OG post (if acceptable) and 5 or so more posts should be enough for atleast the first two OS awards imo

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

We handed out MO for less when me Impy and Luci were in charge, but it was all witnesses for high ranking leaders in the community 

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

Myself and Scotland have had a quick meeting regarding certain rules going forward with nominations etc.

The person nominating can also count as the witness, for awards like commited etc theres no point in 2 people saying the same thing.

We need to be more interpretive with witness statements, In cases such as Mentor We don't need to make them say "RiiOT was my mentor", stuff like "RiiOT has taught me alot etc etc" should be enough for us to think yeah this is someones mentor. 

With retroactive awards e.g the pastries ones, if I screenshot is available for their .com awards they can be awarded at heads discretion. Other awards ee need to start taking into account the rank they held at the time so if it was say for Mentor and they go to senior director we can assume they mentored 5 or more people. In cases of the awards we have right now so Division split and Squad split if we have at least 1 witness who can verify then we can go to staff vote.

3 Witness types we are going to be looking out for -

Factual - these will carry the most weight, facts are what we are after and make the process quicker and easier, encourage the use of facts and try not to discourage people giving the other 2 types of witnessing

Character - Character witness gives us an idea of the person being nominated and can help towards some awards.

Emotional - they will carry the least amount of weight but will still count towards the awards, but it will require multiple.

All in all lets try not to be so uptight with awards, we should want to be here to hand out awards for our members. Obviously this doesnt mean hand out all awards for little to no reason we just need to find a nice middle ground.

 

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

Updated *

[Scarface 77 359]

i agree with the way you put it out there riot. If thats the way were doing it moving forward especially nominators can be witnesses im down !!!! lets goo!!!

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

7 minutes ago, KSI Skarzx 77 said:

i agree with the way you put it out there riot. If thats the way were doing it moving forward especially nominators can be witnesses im down !!!! lets goo!!!

That's what im talking about! lets get out there and award all our hard working members!

[Scarface 77 359]

Im assuming the guidelines to aap section will be edited to reflect this new information ?

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

Already has been, Okay guys with the OS we have now remember to take into account the rank of the person being nominated and the position of those witnessing 

[KSI Airborne 7 565]

40 minutes ago, KSI RiiOT 7 said:

Already has been, Okay guys with the OS we have now remember to take into account the rank of the person being nominated and the position of those witnessing 

I thought that was already factored in? Each OS's descriptions has a rank requirement, and I've always been told a witness from say a board member means more on OS than a witness from a Sgt with 10 posts, for obvious reasons.

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

Yes it is, but from what I've seen with past OS topics, It doesnt seem that way. I'm just saying for everyone to be mindful. Say for OS1 we're not need pages and pages of witnesses.

[KSI Airborne 7 565]

Ok so another question, if we are now going to approve pastries squad splitter retroactive, what about KSI Fadez' for the same as we didnt vote becuase of the retroactive rule like last week?

[KSI RiiOT 7 305]

On 15/03/2018 at 11:30 PM, Airborne 7 said:

Ok so another question, if we are now going to approve pastries squad splitter retroactive, what about KSI Fadez' for the same as we didnt vote becuase of the retroactive rule like last week?

Another thing me and Scotty talked about, also being dealt with