Staff Survey - Results

[Faris]

Hello, hope you're doing well. I'd like to open this by thanking everyone that submitted their response, this post is a bit late and I apologize for that, so credit to [mention]Scheveningen[/mention] for bullying me into submission into finalizing this. Furthermore, I would like to give credit and gratitude to the staff team for all the hard work they've done. I can safely say the server is going on an upward spiral in many fields. While I do understand there are some frustrations on certain things, we do try and improve on them. This is a hobby for all of us as well and we want to enjoy it with the rest of you.

I will state one thing before I begin revealing the results. Aboshehab and Alberyk, we are not the same person. We are not Albo, though admittedly it was funny, it's important I clear this up. Another thing to note is that some people present feedback to the wrong sections, so I took the liberty to adjust it when combing through the findings, partially my fault as I should have clarified things better. I've split the post into parts depending on sections, so you can just avoid the parts you aren't interested in. If you feel I missed something important in my post, feel free to contact me.

Head Administrators and Head Developer/Host

Results of this section were actually pretty good. I'm personally extremely pleased about it. We all got a lot of positive feedback. Wishful thinking is to get 100% in the agree fields, but the truth of the matter we'll never be popular with everyone, but even then, this is a major majority with both questions.

 

 

 

When it came to the written feedback, we got a lot of good things said, which I'm glad that is what people think. I won't go into detail on the specifics unless requested, but you can basically fill in the blanks. As for the negatives, there weren't actually a lot said, but if I were to sum it up, it would boil to the activity of some of us and adherence to rules. I personally think the activity of us three is the best that can be provided given our real life obligations. And as for adherence to rules, we have and will continue to do our best to this, don't be shy of reporting us for it, we just like everyone else do make mistakes, and it is important we are told, even by proxy, these mistakes. There were some more specific critiques which has been relayed, but I won't specifically share here to preserve the identity of the person submitting.

Moderators and Administrators

Results of this section was also pretty good, aside from one which I feel can go through a major improvement. And to clarify, this section covers moderators, secondary administrators and primary administrators. Head Administrators were covered in the previous.

 

 

 

 

 

I do want to improve the results of all of the above, but for the first three, the results were still overall very good. My only issue would be the They are properly handled when they step out of line question. The majority agree this happens, but another sizable majority are people neutral to this. I'm not sure if to interpret this as simply unaware of that side of the server or they are fairly indifferent, or even split on the middle due to different incidents. To clarify, we take a very similar approach to that of reprimanding players, in that we don't want to shame staff either. Mistakes happen, we deal with it as best we can based on what we are given. A major component on all this is trust. We take a similar stance to staff applications, at times you'll note that we are very vague about incidents or denial that isn't pressed by the player, which is mostly due to the fact we do not want to start the equivalent of a witch hunt by revealing some information. Staff and players are entitled to a level of privacy to help maintain their enjoyment of the server and community.

Personally, when it comes to the staff team, and especially the Moderators and Administrators, given the time, I try my best to do some form of monthly audits. I review tickets they take, I review statistics, I review how they handle complaints and how they present themselves to community. Perhaps I can be more transparent, I'll give it a go and so will the others hopefully.

As for the written feedback, I'll outline a few broad things written. Staff coverage, this thing in particular has improved recently, we'll keep monitoring for issues but it seems improved now. Tone of conversation, I do understand where this comes from, I don't think it's inherently malicious by most people as it boils down to people being from different backgrounds and culture, what you may view as hostile or lacking of enthusiasm, might just be indifferent. We handle a lot of issues every day, so when a staff member may seem uncaring, it may not entirely be malicious, but rather a product of you perhaps being the tenth person they've spoken to about a similar problem. I'm not saying abrasive and hostility doesn't exist, I have seen it before and I have addressed it, either by being informed or seeing it, I will continue to personally do so and I trust other staff to also step in when they see it. I do promise to put more effort into this as well.

CCIA

The results of this were to be expected, the majority of answers have been in a positive light but that being said, a good portion was fairly neutral about it, which I interpret as a result of a lack of interaction or seeing them at work, which is to be expected considering what they do.

 

 

 

 

The feedback for this is more clear cut. Again, a lot of good things said about a lot of people, but I'm sure people can fill in the blank on whats good. Negative feedback here tends to be lack of coverage, lack of interaction with faxes/ebs's and activity issues. Per my observation and some work with CCIA recently, there's been a major push about all these issues by [mention]Synnono[/mention]. There's some more specific things again which I've relayed to Syn, but I'll avoid posting here to preserve privacy.

Wiki

 

 

Wiki team is the newest part of our staff team, while they aren't really new anymore, people seem to be somewhat unfamiliar with their workings. So yes, we do have a wiki team, yes they we not always in existence so some may not know about them, yes they are actively working on what they know needs work. The issue here seems to be exposure, they even have a thread up where people suggest things and they work on it in regards to the wiki. I can safetly say the Wiki we have now is much superior to the one we used to have a year ago, all thanks to their work.

https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=8566&start=70#p101570

Lore

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, results are pretty good. The major issue with the results I see is how they handle feedback, something we can most certainly work on. I think these results most stem from the fact the lore team in its core while not fully autonomous in their work, they are very much still free to pursue a lot. So different interactions with different people with different platforms with different content, and so on. Even when it came to the written feedback, there was a lot of issues pertaining to accepting feedback. The other major gripe would be inconsistency with lore, which is something being worked on, but like all things in life, could be better.

Developers

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have much to personally say about the developer team. Only thing I can really note is the feedback question. I'll leave talk about these results to Skull.

Edit: If you want any clarifications, ask.

Edit 2: We had quite a bit joke answers, and honestly, if people keep doing those, these community feedback opportunities are going to get rarer, as it took a lot of my time.

[BurgerBB]

feedback on devs

---

---

---

---

41.4% approval rating, well you suck too smh

[Faris]

It's 51.4%

[Banditoz]

It's 51.4%

[Azande]

[mention]Skull132[/mention] can you speak as to the Development Team section when you are free/available? Interest on your part on that.