Forcing someone to quit?

[Thomasss]

Have you ever forced someone to quit? Maybe they were hired on your team and you just do not like them, so you make working on the team a living hell for them and they quit, or maybe they're too busy in real life so you basically say "either you quit or we fire you" kind of thing; have you ever done something like that?

 

[Ash]

I wouldn't force someone to quit, I wouldn't see the point in that. I would just tell them that they are no longer required or not suitable for the job

 

[JennyorAlice]

I'm with kingcool52. If someone wasn't working out for the position that they were hired for, I would just have a discussion that their services were no longer needed. I don't see the need to make their life miserable just because they aren't working out. I try to part ways on good terms if I can.

 

[KnownSyntax]

No, normally if they want to step down they have that option to but I've never forced anyone to quit. Yes sometimes the staff and others ideas will clash, but in all of my owned (or been apart of staff section forums/websites) the whole team is a democracy and will "vote" on different things that come up. The winning vote will be what gets put into action.

 

[xXInfectedXx]

I wouldn't force someone to quit even if I didn't like them. It's wrong. If the team member broke the staff rules, I would warn them and then remove them from the staff team and give them a demotion reason to why they have been fired.

 

[Cam]

I've never forced someone to quit per se, but sometimes you have to suggest that it would be wise to move on. Some people won't ever stop and smell the roses otherwise. I think it's better to present someone with the opportunity to peacefully resign, rather than having the ugly firing situation. I feel like it's the best way for everyone to walk away on good terms, if handled correctly.

 

[Cryckit]

I really don't like forcing someone to quit a position that he/she holds on a forum staff. I have had to fire a few people from their staff positions for conduct unbecoming though. It would be better to suggest that they move on after a nice friendly conversation. That would be the best alternative. It's better to leave everything on good terms whenever possible in my opinion.

 

[Friendly Survival]

If all else fails ( reasonable that is) I would personally drop access when they are likely to be off duty and explain as professionally as possible why they would be laid off.

Clean and make the unavoidable "dirty" job just a little more "hygienic".

 

[JewishPoptart89]

Forums have politics. Sometimes getting rid of someone is a must. No one likes to do it, but people can hurt a forum's public image. We must do what is needed to protect the identity of a forum.

 

[Friendly Survival]

Forums have politics. Sometimes getting rid of someone is a must. No one likes to do it, but people can hurt a forum's public image. We must do what is needed to protect the identity of a forum.

And... That is why businesses/communities can fails. That is called "cherry picking" and giving certain people "preferential" treatment can be ruin such just as bad if not worst.

If someone breaks a rule it has to be carried out regardless if it person "A", "B", or even "C".

Now exceptions can and sometimes should be made but straight up giving someone "a break" just because of his/her "status" is not good.

 

[JewishPoptart89]

And... That is why businesses/communities can fails. That is called "cherry picking" and giving certain people "preferential" treatment can be ruin such just as bad if not worst.

If someone breaks a rule it has to be carried out regardless if it person "A", "B", or even "C".

Now exceptions can and sometimes should be made but straight up giving someone "a break" just because of his/her "status" is not good.

People who hurt a public image have done something to hurt the public image. I somewhat agree with your rule breaking, however, there are contexts to each situation provided. Yes, they should all be handled the same way to a certain extent, but it can't always be handled the same. I mean the president can pardon someone, can't he?

 

[Friendly Survival]

People who hurt a public image have done something to hurt the public image. I somewhat agree with your rule breaking, however, there are contexts to each situation provided. Yes, they should all be handled the same way to a certain extent, but it can't always be handled the same. I mean the president can pardon someone, can't he?

Think as like this... Say if your hosting two clients... One that is paying you $10 and another paying you $100 per billing cycle.

Now if either of them did SERIOUS stuffs (spamming, staff abuse, and/or etc) they are both seeing "the hammer" faster than they can say anything.

Now your right that under certain situations this won't be applied. In my example it would be easily shown with resource utilization. So between the two clients the $100 client is least likely going to be slapped for this. However even though this client does pay $100 that doesn't exempt them entirely from the resource over usage policy in this example.

So my bottom line with that is rules are still rules.

 

[JewishPoptart89]

Think as like this... Say if your hosting two clients... One that is paying you $10 and another paying you $100 per billing cycle.

Now if either of them did SERIOUS stuffs (spamming, staff abuse, and/or etc) they are both seeing "the hammer" faster than they can say anything.

Now your right that under certain situations this won't be applied. In my example it would be easily shown with resource utilization. So between the two clients the $100 client is least likely going to be slapped for this. However even though this client does pay $100 that doesn't exempt them entirely from the resource over usage policy in this example.

So my bottom line with that is rules are still rules.

I'm not fighting you on this. In fact, I'm supporting what you are saying. At the moment, we're discussing two different things.

 

[Friendly Survival]

I'm not fighting you on this. In fact, I'm supporting what you are saying. At the moment, we're discussing two different things.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

 

[Allan]

I am the type of person people either love or hate, I am honest to a fault and will say what's on my mind no matter what. That being said I just tell them to leave, no need to play around and force them out. I feel it's your site/forum so why create drama when not needed.

 

[Empire]

e
Even that I do not like them why would I remove them if they are doing an very good job. IN my time I had not had to do that and tank god. I would no force them out I would ask them and say why and then leave it up to them.

 

[jyy]

No, I haven't fired anyone, but I feel like it. The problem is I'm too nice. But I won't give them a higher rating, no way. OK, how to deal with this problem?

 

[Friendly Survival]

No, I haven't fired anyone, but I feel like it. The problem is I'm too nice. But I won't give them a higher rating, no way. OK, how to deal with this problem?

This is hard for anyone to "give them the axe". But it has to be done for each party to be successful. You should look at doing it the "good bad good sandwich" method. That way they MIGHT be less salty then saying "Here the axe now get lost!".

 

[jyy]

This is hard for anyone to "give them the axe". But it has to be done for each party to be successful. You should look at doing it the "good bad good sandwich" method. That way they MIGHT be less salty then saying "Here the axe now get lost!".

Spoiler: Fresh Prince Episode Spoiler

Comically, :yum: this sort of reminds me of this Fresh Prince episode (where he ditches college for a car dealership) where Will doesn't have the heart to fire someone. However, though, online you're not face to face with someone. It's easier like that, though, maybe cowardly.