|
|
Detective Resume's
|
Solve A Lot2
Assistant Postman
|
Sep-15-2006 22:46
Thanks to Admin for posting resumes. It is a better idea than listing all detective names (for those that wanted privacy).
Bad News:
There seems to be a bug with the resumes. I know of at least 2 detectives, that show them listed in agencies they never joined.
I believe it is tied to "gift subscriptions". When a person buys someone a gift subscription, it automatically links the accounts. So, now the gifter and giftee have the same resume.
I am sure Sleuth Admin is working on correcting this, but I wanted to let everyone know, before we go around accusing people of "infiltrating our agencies" :D
|
Replies |
jroepel
Con Artist
|
Sep-17-2006 22:45
There's a reason I stayed out of this #$%^ thread. Arguing makes me want to run away and not come back... anyways: I don't really see the point of the resume's. If you look at my profile you'll be a bit confused because unless you happen to know I have a double, you'd think I was up to all sorts of shenanigans moving about here and there. I do give points to Ben for trying to do something to help the directors solve this problem. But seeing as this is casuing such arguments, and I am argument averse at the moment... I am inclined to say can the resume's. But thats just my two cents.
|
cfm
Nomad
|
This reply has been deleted by a Moderator
|
Autumnsprings
Con Artist
|
Sep-17-2006 22:47
*agrees with jroepel and serges* Take them off. Those of us who don't like it, will be relieved. And those who like it won't be any worse off than they were before it was added.
|
Secret_Squirrel
Safety Officer
|
Sep-17-2006 22:48
OK at a risk of making myself unpopular lol...
I think everyone can agree on the following basic points, privacy issues aside:
A. The Resumes are inaccurate.
B. The Resumes don't serve the purpose they were 'originally intended for'.
All this toing and froing is just what? toing and froing. Give it away and move on, let Ben get some sleep and decide what he wants to do. We're all just pissing into the wind here.
|
R Anstett
|
Sep-17-2006 22:49
The information was corrected by Ben, Autumn. The parameters are clearly listed of what is contained there for each person.
Rem, how did I side step your question? I thought I gave specific examples but I will lay out another one here for you.
I am looking to hire a detective for an agency. I want to hire someone who has experience in multiple agencies, and has been in Sleuth for 'x' amount of days. Now I can use this tool to pinpoint exactly who to talk to. Then I can go to that detective's Agency Director and talk with them about the person before interviewing them myself.
In the past two days we have already done this once with a new hire. Without knowing the information about that person's past we would not have been able to have such a smooth and successful hire of a valuable new team member.
|
Della Devine
Well-Connected
|
Sep-17-2006 22:50
Agreed
|
Della Devine
Well-Connected
|
Sep-17-2006 22:51
oh, sorry, I was agreeing with SS
|
Remington Steel
Con Artist
|
Sep-17-2006 22:51
That's an example of your using it, Ran. Not of its necessity.
|
Autumnsprings
Con Artist
|
Sep-17-2006 22:55
But my point is, the information is still inaccurate (or at the very least, incomplete) and not useful for the purpose it was designed. I voted for this change, and now regret it. If I had known how it would be done, I would have voted against it vehemently.
|
R Anstett
|
Sep-17-2006 22:55
Good post CFM.
Claim people should have privacy, then go ahead and use my real name that I have NEVER used on the public boards in Sleuth.
|
|