Printable View
Not wanting to always worry about ratio is far from being hypocritical, on the other hand being staff ( which should be a position of trust) and putting someone to the head of the queue simply because of friendship,as much as it was nice of him, doesn't reflect very well on the site.Quote:
Originally Posted by ringhunter
Yes a proper staffer is a horrid bitch to his friends.
A proper staffer treats everyone, whether he likes them or not, exactly the same.
Btw sarcasm is only effective if it makes a valid point.
Well he could have gone away to do something else than interviewing as well. It's all his time, not payed time by his boss, the site, whatever. So he can do what he wants. Hell, he could even have 'stopped interviewing for five minutes, and just inviting his friend with his own invite'. How does inviting your friend before working your way through a bunch of random people, perhaps 95% cheaters, traders, n00bs, etc. make you a bad staffer?
Valid point, heh, just a point you don't agree to.
I never said that he was a bad staffer .:unsure:I just alluded to the fact that people in positions of authority ( most notably those that were given them presumably to do a certain job and adhere to to certain ethical standards ) when faced with a decision their first concern should be fairness and everything else( including friendship) coming someplace after that.
Hell of a way to run an army man.Hell of a way.
Btw I also don't see how whether he is paid or not factors into it.He was given and presumably accepted the position in good faith .Does living up to responsibility necessitate being paid ?