Ideally, yes, but different reviewers may or may not focus on the same things. Many OOSes only discuss how the applicant provided feedback to the OOS author, because a lot of feedback is delivered privately, which is totally ok (but how would we know).
But, once again, this is only one component of why we are clarifying the expectations here. The crewmembers who need evaluations to progress are set up in a power dynamic where they are forced to ask, beg, nag, and harass in order to get them, which is not cool. For someone who relied on evaluations to get their level, and who elects themself into a crew head role by applying for it or even accepting it, is expected to contribute in the same way they relied on for their own progression.
We hear clearly that the specific expectation listed in our original post cannot be applied worldwide â someone whoâs always crew head, because nobody else will do it, working with the same people, over and over, for many sanctioned games â thatâs too much work (we hear you) and we wouldnât get much incremental value out of it (if the evals are all the same). That was not a reasonable expectation. But if thatâs the situation you should still be contributing something to those people if they are on the cert track and so are you. So first, weâre starting with âare you doing any at all,â and following up if the answer is âno,â to figure out whatâs going on, and to see what the real numbers look like.
I find this formulation disappointing. There is strong opposition but instead of taking it into account and reflecting on whether the idea is good, we just clarify that thatâs how it is. I realise that Cert ultimately decides how Cert runs, and more precisely the officials doing the work decide how the work is done. Thatâs fair, itâs all volunteer work. That being said, this involves work from everyone, not just Cert; and there is support to the idea that itâs not a good decision, with reasonable supporting arguments that have not been addressed. There are also constructive suggestions that have been simply ignored.
Clarifications are for ambiguous formulations that some people might understand differently than they were intended. Describing as a clarification what many of us see as both a bad idea and a surprise or new direction will not encourage people to engage with certification.
I frequently head official for a crew of officials where none are registered for evals, or want them. I offer verbal feedback in games, but honestly its rare that I am asked for a formal eval from an official. I do it for any registered officials at any sanctioned games, but again that number is often very low.
My ability to provide good evals is not a good indication on my ability to be a good higher level official. I spend a lot of time talking ,teaching, mentoring, giving advice at events, rather than writing evals which seem unwanted by most.