Staff resignations

[Casanova]

The female I mentioned was unreliable and pretty rubbish at her job in all honesty.

[The Don]

Well, I would disagree. What benefits HX the most is having the staff? Not having amazing, unreliable staff?
I know that my boss would rather me being mediocre and reliable that amazing and spontaneous.

If say, an AGM Resigns due to personal issues, comes back and then has to resign again and is placed on a DNH List, then a new AGM replaces them, if the new AGM messes up, say gets banned and there are no staff which are capable of fulfilling the duties, the person on the DNH list would not be able to come back even though they have the experience and qualities necessary to step up to the role. That is why I appose a DNH List.

The female I mentioned was unreliable and pretty rubbish at her job in all honesty.

That's your opinion, we can't see what she did behind the scenes.

[HotelUser]

I have seen a lot of situations where staff members are allowed back more times than what is perhaps appropriate. In such cases those individuals probably should be told prior to resigning something along the lines of, if you resign this time you will have to completely re-apply if you wish to return. I think that would be a good fix for most situations. However, in some circumstances it's best to look at things on a per basis scenario. Sometimes a staff member wishes to resign due to (for example) personal reasons and then wishes to return at a later date, and there isn't anybody else who could fill their shoes. In a situation like that I think we sort of have no choice but to allow the individual back

The female I mentioned was unreliable and pretty rubbish at her job in all honesty.

I an exceedingly happy that your opinions on our staff have absolutely no impact with regards to if they're actually hired or not because your attitude you present toward other people could not be more horrific

[Inseriousity.]

I agree with casanova. No-one's irreplaceable and those who think they are are probably the type of people that should be replaced. Think a year's ban on the DNH list is a bit harsh though, don't agree with that bit.

[Casanova]

WHO REMOVED MY POST!?
why do you lot keep ******* doing this?

[The Don]

I agree with casanova. No-one's irreplaceable and those who think they are are probably the type of people that should be replaced. Think a year's ban on the DNH list is a bit harsh though, don't agree with that bit.

The person who is best for the job should get it, whether they have resigned a lot in the past, it doesn't matter, I'd rather have a great GM who may not be here for a long period rather than an incompetent staff member who is next in line.

---------- Post added 25-08-2011 at 08:48 PM ----------

WHO REMOVED MY POST!?
why do you lot keep ******* doing this?

It was probably removed because it was a paragraph aimed at Dave rather than a constructive post which was on topic.

[Inseriousity.]

"Person who is best for the job"

You keep saying it but you haven't really defined it. Personally I don't think someone who you're going to worry is going to resign 3 months down the line will ever match up to said title. As for incompetent staff member next in line? How exactly do you know they're incompetent if they're not even given a chance to prove otherwise?

[Chippiewill]

The person who is best for the job should get it, whether they have resigned a lot in the past, it doesn't matter, I'd rather have a great GM who may not be here for a long period rather than an incompetent staff member who is next in line.

I'd rather have a great GM who is loyal than one which isn't.

[HotelUser]

The person who is best for the job should get it, whether they have resigned a lot in the past, it doesn't matter, I'd rather have a great GM who may not be here for a long period rather than an incompetent staff member who is next in line.

I agree with casanova. No-one's irreplaceable and those who think they are are probably the type of people that should be replaced. Think a year's ban on the DNH list is a bit harsh though, don't agree with that bit.

I agree with both of you in a way. Mike you're right, sometimes the amount of times a user is allowed to resign and return is far too frequent. The roles staff members uphold are beyond valuable toward keeping the fansite functioning, however sometimes it is fair to let the new kid on the block take a stab at a staff role if their predecessor forfeited it up willingly. On the other end of the spectrum I also agree with Don. When it's something like the GM position I don't think we have the luxury of moving along down the "hicharcy" sortospeak. The most qualified individual should hold this position. That's why I still think it should be looked at on a per department per basis scenario. I think Managers should have the responsibility and authority of turning down an individual whom wants to return because they've done so too frequently. A manager knows best out of anyone else where their department stands with regards to staffing and if by rejecting someone it will cripple the department, or help it. Therefore so I think they should mandate (like they do right now) when to draw the line at prohibiting someone from returning.

[The Don]

"Person who is best for the job"

You keep saying it but you haven't really defined it. Personally I don't think someone who you're going to worry is going to resign 3 months down the line will ever match up to said title. As for incompetent staff member next in line? How exactly do you know they're incompetent if they're not even given a chance to prove otherwise?

The person who is best for the job is generally the most experienced person, one who can make decisions and enforce them and can manage well. A tried and tested method is generally better, although sometimes there are other staff who deserve the job more, if they aren't right for the job, the person who resigns a lot should be considered if they were good in the position!