[Nudel]

Today is a prime example of the activity problem.

Not a single staff member has joined today. The whole day the server is without any administration/moderation. More than 35 players are online atm.

[Nudel]

It's recap time!

So, what is going on ya'll?

It' been roughly 4 months since I last posted some statistics and I think it's time to do it again, although with more compact graphs this time.

This month

4 Months Ago

As you can see from the above graph the overall activity of the team has decline, some staff members continue to have really low Garrys Mod hours. Last time the average was 29 hours yet this time we're sitting at 19 hours, a 41.6% decrease despite no difference in staff count. Enzyme did state that he would:

talk to the Administrators in question who are lacking here.

So would it be possible to get an update on the staff members that continue to have 0 or less than 10 hours on the server? and also why staff activity continues to decline? I've also taken the time to calculate the players 2 weekly average from the sample set I have of 70 players, this put the difference between the two groups at 95.8% or 35 hours between the two averages.

Now I must state, just like last time:

Statistics

These statistics are Steam statistics and are not server based, only Gmod.

The actual time spent on the LL servers maybe be considerably less but never more.

Mr.Marsh has been eliminated from the graph because of being unable to obtain his data.

Is it possible to receive a response by HR to these statistics?

[Taylor]

It's recap time!

So, what is going on ya'll?

It' been roughly 4 months since I last posted some statistics and I think it's time to do it again, although with more compact graphs this time.

This month

4 Months Ago

As you can see from the above graph the overall activity of the team has decline, some staff members continue to have really low Garrys Mod hours. Last time the average was 29 hours yet this time we're sitting at 19 hours, a 41.6% decrease despite no difference in staff count. Enzyme did state that he would:

talk to the Administrators in question who are lacking here.

So would it be possible to get an update on the staff members that continue to have 0 or less than 10 hours on the server? and also why staff activity continues to decline? I've also taken the time to calculate the players 2 weekly average from the sample set I have of 70 players, this put the difference between the two groups at 95.8% or 35 hours between the two averages.

Now I must state, just like last time:

Statistics

These statistics are Steam statistics and are not server based, only Gmod.

The actual time spent on the LL servers maybe be considerably less but never more.

Mr.Marsh has been eliminated from the graph because of being unable to obtain his data.

Is it possible to receive a response by HR to these statistics?

@Enzyme @Overlewd

[Taylor]

Yay my trial moderator suggestions was made a reality, turns out they do listen

[Cole]

Yeah it’s good to see that they are acknowledging the community’s concern and trying to fix it.

[Adam James]

with the new rank there better be a larger amount of active staff then. glad they're finally listening to the community

[Nudel]

It's recap time!

So, what is going on ya'll?

It' been roughly 4 months since I last posted some statistics and I think it's time to do it again, although with more compact graphs this time.

This month

4 Months Ago

As you can see from the above graph the overall activity of the team has decline, some staff members continue to have really low Garrys Mod hours. Last time the average was 29 hours yet this time we're sitting at 19 hours, a 41.6% decrease despite no difference in staff count. Enzyme did state that he would:

talk to the Administrators in question who are lacking here.

So would it be possible to get an update on the staff members that continue to have 0 or less than 10 hours on the server? and also why staff activity continues to decline? I've also taken the time to calculate the players 2 weekly average from the sample set I have of 70 players, this put the difference between the two groups at 95.8% or 35 hours between the two averages.

Now I must state, just like last time:

Statistics

These statistics are Steam statistics and are not server based, only Gmod.

The actual time spent on the LL servers maybe be considerably less but never more.

Mr.Marsh has been eliminated from the graph because of being unable to obtain his data.

Is it possible to receive a response by HR to these statistics?

Oi

@Enzyme @Overlewd

[Taylor]

I mean it’s great to see staff activity is trying to be combatted with trial mods, but to be completely honest I was expecting more than one

[Nudel]

@"ForceGhost" Any possibility to get a new staff-activity graph?

[ForceGhost]

@"ForceGhost" Any possibility to get a new staff-activity graph?

I'll work n one today

[Nudel]

@"ForceGhost" Any possibility to get a new staff-activity graph?

I'll work n one today

Great to hear that. Thanks for responding this fast.

[ForceGhost]

So! After no response to the last activity report, a request by @"Nudelsalat im Panzer" has launched the segment into full swing once more!

So before we see the meat and potatoes I'd like to preface this with a question,

"Has staff activity improved since the last report?"

The answer to that question is below.

Staff Activity in the last two weeks (These may be ABOVE the time spent on the server but never BELOW)



So, the answer to the above question is a resounding "No" with a 37.5% decrease in staff activity since the last report. While this report doesn't speak for activity over the entire duration of the past few months it does give us an insight into what a month of staff activity can look like in reality.

Getting fancy I've even created a fade below so you can more visually see the difference in staff activity.



We're still awaiting a response from HR on the last graph posted, maybe we could get one in this one?

@Enzyme @Overlewd

[Jokhah]

Considering that staff are volenteers with real lives of their own, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by pointing out that some are inactive.  Even if they were removed, the activity wouldn't increase.  Increasing recruitment for the staff team seems logical, but looking around the house there aren't many who I feel would maintain anything better than what we are seeing now.  They would simply be at the start of their life cycle, meaning that they would be a bit more active then the average admin, but would burn out fast too.

Not saying you can't ask the question, but I don't see what the overall purpose is beyond drama.

I predict that if they say they are working on it, it'll turn into a "you've said that before"

If they say they aren't: "You're lazy, you should resign"

Ultimately this always feels like an attempt to weed out inactive staff in hopes of either making staff or having preferred people make staff, but in the end these things always led right back to this discussion.

You can't fix the problem with graphs, pointing out activity levels, trying to stir a pot.  You can fix it by being the guy that fits the model they are looking for and getting the job.

My two cents.

[BlackDog]

Considering that staff are volenteers with real lives of their own, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by pointing out that some are inactive.  

To me the point is to make it known, myself and others worked on inactivity reports and submitted them to HR over the course of a year, and not once did we ever really get a response on what was going to be done.

In the end seemingly nothing was ever done.

By policy, HR should have stepped in a long long time ago, especially when our reports showed 2 members of the administrative staff had failed all quotas for 10-12 months in a row, with a third failing quota 6 months in a row.

Teachers are held to more strict standards than administrative staff when it comes to alot of things.

Whether the staff are "volunteers" or not is irrelevant, when you "volunteer" on LL, you accept you must meet specific standards and a quota every month.

That being said, by UK definitions on what separates a volunteer from an employee, a big one is that volunteer are not expected to maintain any level of work beyond what they do when they arrive until they leave.

An employee has sets of standards and quotas to what they need to accomplish or they risk loosing their position

The definition LL by law abides by from the UK Gov website seems to view LL's "volunteers", as employees/workers due to what is expected of them and their employment contract.

As such, they should be held to account for their inactivity, and if they cannot be active enough to meet quota for 12 months, they shouldn't BE on the administrative team.


Side Note: Technicly "staff" should be by UK law, paid for their work under a minimum wage as they do not fall into a "volunteer" catagory, but that's a indepth discussion for another thread.

[ForceGhost]

Inactive staff still have a vote on important behind the scene topics.

I, personally, don't believe that someone putting 0 hours into the server should be having a say on important decisions that affect people on the server they're not dedicating their time to. I'd rather a stage 2 mod that's putting 50 hours into the server be given a vote than an administrator with 0.

I don't make the graphs to "stir a pot" I do it because 

a) It's requested by the community  
b) Because it will hopefully instigate change and hold the team accountable for both activity and the transparency we've been told we'd receive.