March 2016: Post on salary payments for the touring team (discussions on reforms related to touring assignments)

This post was last edited by O.K. on 2016-4-7 22:04. The current difficulties with the periodic reports are: 1. Some of the content is not very meaningful. For example, who are the best-performing moderators and who are the subpar ones – basically, the regional managers can tell just by looking at the management data. 2. Many issues are overused clichés. There are indeed some problems, but the inspection team has raised them, and no good solution can be found. 3. Issues reported are not addressed in a timely manner. There is a monthly report, but it’s not possible to address issues promptly and make corrections in a timely manner. For example, if a management problem arises, it is only brought up in the periodic reports after half a month or a month has passed, by which time the urgency has already faded. 4. Some regional managers and most moderators do not pay attention to the periodic reports. Just watch it if you want; many people, after watching, don’t even bother to reply. The supervisory powers of the inspection team are a bit awkward. As a solution, could some of the assessment criteria for regional managers be delegated to the field teams? However, this could easily lead to interference in the work of those regional managers, and it might create a \"superior-subordinate\" relationship, which isn’t appropriate upon closer consideration. Alternatively, could we start with HaiChuan coins, with cleaners regularly receiving HaiChuan coin rewards from the regional managers, with the inspection team providing recommendations?

Regarding the assessment of regional managers, we can be flexible and score each region; the top three can receive honors or Haichuan coins as a way to acknowledge and encourage their work. This aspect can be further detailed – as for the rewards, they could be Haichuan coins, physical items, prestige, or medals, among other options

1. The inspection team’s role is to assist the regional offices in managing things properly; it merely serves as a reminder for certain matters. The regional offices have the discretion to decide whether to act on these reminders. However, excessive interference in their internal affairs is not advisable. When it comes to distributing salaries and rewards to the regional managers and deputy supervisors, as well as to the cleaners, should opinions from those responsible for inspecting the various branches be taken into consideration? Alternatively, the salaries of moderators in each forum section could be paid, with a certain proportion allocated to those who oversee multiple forums, in an effort to address the issue of moderators not performing their duties properly. 2. In response to the poor results identified in the periodic reviews, I agree with Qiqi’s suggestion to combine a regional scoring system with incentive measures to motivate people. 3. Since some regional managers and most moderators do not pay attention to the periodic reports, those who participate in responding to posts should be given certain financial incentives to encourage their involvement.

Let’s discuss how to reform the regular inspection reports. When serving as the head of the machinery division, I had to read these inspection reports on a monthly basis. Here are my personal thoughts on them: 1. Inspection reports are very necessary for several reasons: First, they allow us to see what advantages and disadvantages we have compared to other divisions, enabling us to learn from one another； II. It has a “exposing” effect and can serve as a certain form of “motivation”. 2. Content of inspection reports: It is good to use a scoring system combined with an incentive mechanism; the content of inspection reports must be quantified. 3. The assessment of regional managers should take into account the inspection reports.

Let’s talk about how to reform the round-robin notification system. 1. I believe that whatever the task of the round-robin teams is, the principle should be to promote the development and progress of the forum. By utilizing the authority granted by the forum administrators, it is possible to motivate everyone, while also preventing and stopping factors that disrupt the order of the forum and hinder its healthy growth. 2. As for the notifications, it is also necessary to address both the positive and negative aspects of intervention at the higher levels, and that is what everyone has been doing all along. 3. However, as time passes, the reports themselves become rigid, boring, and lack novelty; those who read them also become casual about them, paying no attention or even showing hostility toward them... 4. It is necessary to update and improve the content of these reports. At the same time, it should be requested that the content of these reports be included in performance evaluations; moreover, it might be appropriate to have the performance of regional managers assessed by the inspection teams, as well as the average salary of regional moderators. 5. I believe there should be both rewards and punishments, with positive and negative incentives applied simultaneously; it’s not enough to only reward those who perform well.

Let’s talk about how to reform the regular reports. 1) Currently, these reports are all identical; the ones written each month merely describe what happened in the past, so they’re not necessary at all. 2) Many problems cannot be controlled through regular checks. Even after moderators review these reports and make corrections where necessary or offer advice otherwise, the same problems persist in the following month. In my opinion, the role of the inspection team is simply to handle emergencies and assist district leaders in overseeing the area when they don’t have time to do so themselves. Unqualified moderators and qualified ones are essentially the same – why are it always the same people who fail to meet the standards each month? And the zone manager didn’t fire them? We have all probably been team leaders, each with our own ideas, and it is our role to help these team leaders make the tough decisions.

Circular updates on how to bring about reforms: It seems that the problems existing in various regions remain unchanged; the same few excellent moderators are always there, and the same few unsuitable ones as well. Regarding the issue of unqualified moderators not being dismissed after a long time, it is likely that all regions face the problem of difficulty in finding suitable moderators: some people work selflessly out of enthusiasm, while others serve as moderators for a few months to earn some money before leaving. The existing incentives in the forum are quite limited; moderators have virtual wealth that they cannot spend. When I was the head of a region before, I realized that managing such a region effectively indeed required a lot of time and effort – dealing with recruitment matters, organizing events, and so on. The forum has developed to what it is today, and relying solely on enthusiasm and selfless management can never be a sustainable solution, after all, everyone has real jobs to attend to. Personally, I suggest that in the future, the inspection teams should evaluate the performance of each region for that month; based on these scores, cleaners should be given a certain amount of HaiChuan coins, while the regional supervisors should reward outstanding moderators and members. There’s no need to produce such a long report; probably few moderators will actually read it.

I’ve been working outdoors all this time with no internet access; today I found a place where I could use the internet and took the chance to complete this task. I’m sorry for that. Regarding the periodic briefings, I agree with everyone that they have indeed become a formality at present and fail to serve any promotional purpose. The fundamental reason is that the circular notifications are not binding on the various regions, nor do they hold any appeal for them. In light of this, 1. I support the idea put forward by everyone to establish a system of evaluation and rewards in order to supervise, restrain, and motivate the regional branches to exceed their targets. 2. The specific evaluation principles, methods, and criteria for the inspection teams represent a major challenge, as quantification is not an easy task. I suggest quantifying the monthly posting volume of the region, the amount of management work done by moderators, the number of posts posted by moderators, the number of posts reviewed by moderators, the balance in moderator management, as well as the volume of activities organized and the level of activity within the region. By aggregating these values and calculating a weighted average, a monthly score for the super-board can be determined, which can then be used as the basis for evaluation. In addition, certain bonus and penalty points are established: extra points are given if the amount of management work carried out by the moderator exceeds a certain threshold, while points are deducted if the amount of management is below that threshold or if there is no management at all. Points are deducted if the advertising section in the forum area is not properly cleaned up or if the layout is messy; points are also deducted in case of any disharmonious issues within the forum area. Points are awarded to those who actively resolve conflicts within the forum area. Wait, wait—it can be refined and expanded step by step. 3. Do not interfere with the management within each region; for example, do not get involved in any evaluations, activities organized there, or the internal management systems of the moderators. However, those who violate the forum’s rules should be stopped, and points should be deducted from them. 4. It should be noted that when formulating detailed rules for quantitative evaluation, it is necessary to take into account feasibility as well as everyone’s time and effort. At the initial stage, things should not be made too complicated; items can be revised and adjusted gradually. 5. The biggest difficulty in quantitative evaluation lies in the different interpretations people have of the criteria; for those assessment items that rely on intuition, it’s best to raise the issue so that Qiqi can assign scores uniformly. 6. The level of activity in different sections, the number of users in each section, and the size of these sections vary greatly; therefore, it is not possible to use a single standard for quantification. Everyone needs to find a way to avoid this issue, otherwise smaller sections will never be able to become excellent ones.