|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 10, 2010 0:55:58 GMT -5
So, as most of you know, the admins will be choosing the new admins this month. What's going to happen is people will send in applications via email, the admins will read them all, then they will pick which ones they see they can work with and is qualified to be an admin, and pick them. I do not like this. What gives the admins the right to pick them? They will be leading us, we should pick them, much how people elect senators or other public officials. Bree has said that they can't just work with random people and they need people they can get a long with. Do you think all senators get along? Of course not. Debate is good. The decision making process for thsi forum and by extention the tribe, shouldn't be a walk through candy land where everyone says "Great idea! We all agree! Let's all be happy!". There should be people who disagree. Through debate, the flaws in a proposed will be brought to the surface and will be fixed or removed. I don't know, that's my opinion. I know that this has been the admin selection process until now, but I would really like to see it change. My proposal may also help avoid member/admin conflict in the future. If the admins are selected directly by the members, then they can have no complaing about it later. After all, it will have been their own choice.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on May 10, 2010 1:08:13 GMT -5
I believe the admins know what they're doing. I also believe the "leadership" structure here is different than most places. The admins need to build a team they feel comfortable with, they trust, and they know best the kind of people that would make "good" admins for what they need to do here.
I believe that if "we" picked admins, it would simply turn into a popularity contest. Some joker would most likely be chosen and then the current admin team would need to just deal with that. That sounds crazy to me.
|
|
|
Post by Speckley on May 10, 2010 1:09:27 GMT -5
It is important that the admins are able to get along with each other, yes. In order to keep confusion at bay, we need to be able to give the same answer for the same, or similar questions. That aside, you assume that we always agree with what each of us says or proposes in admin calls. (Or in general, for that matter.) In reality, we don't always agree. Some of the decisions we've made are decisions that come out of compromise, to include both sides of a discussion. There are admins who are all too happy to point out logistics of a situation, let me tell ya.
And the role of administrator is going to change in the future. As much as I would love to be able to tell you guys, I can't say how. Let's just say that we hope to move above and beyond the traditional sense of the role of "online forum administrator."
And as far as we know at this point in time, the new admins are the only thing that the current admins will be picking exclusively. Everything else - in terms of forum government and the like - will be decided by the users.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 10, 2010 1:09:38 GMT -5
I believe the admins know what they're doing. I also believe the "leadership" structure here is different than most places. The admins need to build a team they feel comfortable with, they trust, and they know best the kind of people that would make "good" admins for what they need to do here. I believe that if "we" picked admins, it would simply turn into a popularity contest. Some joker would most likely be chosen and then the current admin team would need to just deal with that. That sounds crazy to me. Not if we do what Bree (I think Bree) suggested. Take the applications, post them without names, and have them voted on. The people who applied wouldn't vote, of course.
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on May 10, 2010 1:10:15 GMT -5
I think either way you go, there's always gonna be a little bit of the popularity contest factor. Let's say I rubbed an admin the wrong way. Or the right way for that matter. Then there's a bias.
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on May 10, 2010 1:11:32 GMT -5
Honestly, the main issue with anyone besides the admins choosing new admins is that we know what is required of the job. It's not as cut and dry as you might think. You guys aren't necessarily going to choose the right person for a job you don't understand (and can't really understand until you have to do it).
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 10, 2010 1:13:08 GMT -5
And the role of administrator is going to change in the future. As much as I would love to be able to tell you guys, I can't say how. Let's just say that we hope to move above and beyond the traditional sense of the role of "online forum administrator." That would just make it unfair then. "We're going to pick them because you don't know what they're going to do." That just irks me a bit
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 10, 2010 1:13:45 GMT -5
I think either way you go, there's always gonna be a little bit of the popularity contest factor. Let's say I rubbed an admin the wrong way. Or the right way for that matter. Then there's a bias. Too late
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 10, 2010 1:14:19 GMT -5
Honestly, the main issue with anyone besides the admins choosing new admins is that we know what is required of the job. It's not as cut and dry as you might think. You guys aren't necessarily going to choose the right person for a job you don't understand (and can't really understand until you have to do it). See my reply to Erin
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on May 10, 2010 1:14:09 GMT -5
Zang, does anything we do NOT irk you?
Really, you complain about everything the admins do, not matter what it is. It's kind of ridiculous. :/
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 10, 2010 1:15:39 GMT -5
Zang, does anything we do NOT irk you? Really, you complain about everything the admins do, not matter what it is. It's kind of ridiculous. :/ Well, maybe doing something I agree with would stop this. Trust me, most of the stuff Dan has done has irked me too
|
|
|
Post by Rob on May 10, 2010 1:15:46 GMT -5
I believe the admins know what they're doing. I also believe the "leadership" structure here is different than most places. The admins need to build a team they feel comfortable with, they trust, and they know best the kind of people that would make "good" admins for what they need to do here. I believe that if "we" picked admins, it would simply turn into a popularity contest. Some joker would most likely be chosen and then the current admin team would need to just deal with that. That sounds crazy to me. Not if we do what Bree (I think Bree) suggested. Take the applications, post them without names, and have them voted on. The people who applied wouldn't vote, of course. The problem there is that we don't know the "exact" qualifications needed to be an admin. We're not familiar with the intricacies that go with being an admin. I don't think we're in any position to choose. I think either way you go, there's always gonna be a little bit of the popularity contest factor. Let's say I rubbed an admin the wrong way. Or the right way for that matter. Then there's a bias. Yes, sure. But remember that the admins will discuss each and every application together (or at least somewhat together). When we could just vote on someone, it's pretty hard for one person to be swayed away from choosing their friend or someone very popular because they just click to vote and it's done with. Just my thoughts on that.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 10, 2010 1:19:40 GMT -5
Well, with all the secrecy, why not this. Last time, they knew who they wanted, the applications were mostly to see if they would apply (tell me if that's wrong). So, why don't the admins just approach people secretly and ask if they want to become an admin? With all the secrecy, it seems fitting.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on May 10, 2010 1:22:02 GMT -5
Well, with all the secrecy, why not this. Last time, they knew who they wanted, the applications were mostly to see if they would apply (tell me if that's wrong). So, why don't the admins just approach people secretly and ask if they want to become an admin? With all the secrecy, it seems fitting. I can't tell you "if that's wrong." But that doesn't matter. Even if they have people in mind already, what if someone they didn't think of submits an amazing application? And, in any case, you'd still have a problem with your own suggestion if they did that, so what's the point in posting it?
|
|
|
Post by newschooled on May 10, 2010 1:22:40 GMT -5
Well, with all the secrecy, why not this. Last time, they knew who they wanted, the applications were mostly to see if they would apply (tell me if that's wrong). So, why don't the admins just approach people secretly and ask if they want to become an admin? With all the secrecy, it seems fitting. That wouldn't really change who got selected though...Unless they declined....Which they can anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on May 10, 2010 1:23:21 GMT -5
This isn't even about secrecy. There aren't any secrets surrounding this, really. It's barely even started, and you're already accusing us of keeping things from you. >.>
If I could sit here and explain to you what being an "admin" means how I see and feel it exactly and have you understand it perfectly, I would. But the fact is, I can't. That's not me trying to keep secrets, that's just how it is.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 10, 2010 1:24:27 GMT -5
Well, with all the secrecy, why not this. Last time, they knew who they wanted, the applications were mostly to see if they would apply (tell me if that's wrong). So, why don't the admins just approach people secretly and ask if they want to become an admin? With all the secrecy, it seems fitting. I can't tell you "if that's wrong." But that doesn't matter. Even if they have people in mind already, what if someone they didn't think of submits an amazing application? And, in any case, you'd still have a problem with your own suggestion if they did that, so what's the point in posting it? That was kind of a joke (the secret approaching thing)
|
|
|
Post by Speckley on May 10, 2010 1:29:11 GMT -5
This isn't even about secrecy. There aren't any secrets surrounding this, really. It's barely even started, and you're already accusing us of keeping things from you. >.> And the role of administrator is going to change in the future. As much as I would love to be able to tell you guys, I can't say how. Let's just say that we hope to move above and beyond the traditional sense of the role of "online forum administrator. Preemptive response time! I'm drawing attention to something that I've already said because it might be misinterpreted as a "secret". Let me say one thing: the future is uncertain, at all times, no matter what the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on May 10, 2010 1:29:38 GMT -5
Yes, sure. But remember that the admins will discuss each and every application together (or at least somewhat together). When we could just vote on someone, it's pretty hard for one person to be swayed away from choosing their friend or someone very popular because they just click to vote and it's done with. Just my thoughts on that. This is another great point. Every admin is going to be in a Skype call, thoroughly discussing every application. I seriously doubt every person would take the time to put in the amount of time and effort we are going to put into the process. We're going to lay out the reasons why or why not we want or do not want someone, discuss them, etc. There's no possible way all of you could do that. You'd be all split into groups, which is what happened to the admins last time. And last time? An admin was removed. Not going to happen again, sorry. There's just no way you can compete with a live, voice chat, with every single person present and 100% dedicated to what is being done.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 10, 2010 1:46:55 GMT -5
Not necessarily what I meant. I know you will spend a long time in a skype call about it. And people voting wouldn't. I just find it better that everyone gets a say in it.
Could this be elaborated?
|
|