|
Post by Breepop on May 10, 2010 1:52:11 GMT -5
Could this be elaborated? Um. It was never discussed in a call, just at different times with different people in the admin chat. So three people would be on at one time, and they'd discuss, then later on in that day, two people would be on at one time, they'd discuss, etc. We never discussed it together, which was a problem, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 10, 2010 1:56:49 GMT -5
Could this be elaborated? Um. It was never discussed in a call, just at different times with different people in the admin chat. So three people would be on at one time, and they'd discuss, then later on in that day, two people would be on at one time, they'd discuss, etc. We never discussed it together, which was a problem, I guess. Oh right. Something like that was mentioned before =P
|
|
|
Post by chelseeyuh on May 10, 2010 4:31:24 GMT -5
Hey Zang, guess what?! I disagree with you! The world isn't ending after all I don't see a problem with how the last 3 admins were chosen. Beforehand, I didn't really know anything about Erin, Mike, or Sarah, so if the decision had been up to us, I know I personally wouldn't have chosen them. But now they've proven themselves to be great admins. Also, I think the current admins will be less biased than tribe members. For example, I know some people are extremely dogmatic, and would probably purposely not vote for people who debates against them, even if they are admin-worthy. And as for having a bias against people who rub the admins the wrong way, that doesn't happen very often. The admins seem to let a lot of stuff go, so if you genuinely anger them, you must have done something bad...
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 10, 2010 4:36:36 GMT -5
Thank God! I don't either Heh Asher's banned... lulz
|
|
|
Post by Trey on May 10, 2010 7:56:45 GMT -5
Hey Zang, guess what?! I disagree with you! The world isn't ending after all I don't see a problem with how the last 3 admins were chosen. Beforehand, I didn't really know anything about Erin, Mike, or Sarah, so if the decision had been up to us, I know I personally wouldn't have chosen them. But now they've proven themselves to be great admins. Also, I think the current admins will be less biased than tribe members. For example, I know some people are extremely dogmatic, and would probably purposely not vote for people who debates against them, even if they are admin-worthy. And as for having a bias against people who rub the admins the wrong way, that doesn't happen very often. The admins seem to let a lot of stuff go, so if you genuinely anger them, you must have done something bad... Chelsea, I'm willing to bet that you're going to be an admin. You're one of the most active people I know! Zang, I really think you're over thinking this whole thing. The methods for choosing new admins are the same methods used to hire people in the real world. You'd be crazy to assume that members who want to be admins shouldn't have to take active responsibility. I'm willing to bet that there are extremely active people on this forum who love the SPOTM and DON'T want to become admins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the admins are trying to see who really is interested in the admin position and who is willing to take the initiative to write a well thought out application. Now, what was that application email again? Haha ;D
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on May 10, 2010 9:02:19 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. The JOKER will be chosen? Let's put a smile on the face... HEHEHEHHAHAHAHHEHEHHHAHAHAHHEHEHEHAHHA
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on May 10, 2010 9:06:37 GMT -5
Also, on a slightly less funny note, I started a thread where people can say who their leaders are on the moon. Who do you think is cool, or admin worthy? Post your ideas there if you want a voice. It is not an official thread, but it is a great way for people who feel like someone should be nominated, to say who! Also, if I see my name on the list enough times, I might apply. But as of now, I don't think I will. It's not that I don't think I am qualified, it is just that I am happy where I am. Oh and by the way, I can't be Speckley's fanboi if I was an admin too. It would be totally weird
|
|
|
Post by Danielle on May 10, 2010 9:16:29 GMT -5
Chelsea, I'm willing to bet that you're going to be an admin. You're one of the most active people I know! Just because you're active doesn't mean you'll be an admin. We chose Mike, Erin and Sarah last time based on their applications. I had seen posts made by Mike, I recognized Sarah's name, and Erin? No idea. They all has solid applications. It has little to nothing to do with how you post on the forums. Unless, of course, you're a major troll. Honestly? We had a few ideas about who we wanted before, but none of those people delivered like Sarah, Mike and Erin did. They weren't on our radar at all, at least not mine. I'm not a part of the decision making process, but it is IMPERATIVE that the admins choose someone with whom they mesh. After we voted for the best applicants, the people who got the most votes were invited to chat with us either in calls or in a chat room. We just spoke casually and saw how well we worked together. If it went well, we would vote again until we had unanimously decided on three. It's not a biased process in the least, if done correctly. The other admins have to agree as well, if someone is obviously pushing their friend, no matter how good they are, they will probably be shot down.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on May 10, 2010 10:59:13 GMT -5
Chelsea, I'm willing to bet that you're going to be an admin. You're one of the most active people I know! Just because you're active doesn't mean you'll be an admin. We chose Mike, Erin and Sarah last time based on their applications. I had seen posts made by Mike, I recognized Sarah's name, and Erin? No idea. They all has solid applications. It has little to nothing to do with how you post on the forums. Unless, of course, you're a major troll. Honestly? We had a few ideas about who we wanted before, but none of those people delivered like Sarah, Mike and Erin did. They weren't on our radar at all, at least not mine. I'm not a part of the decision making process, but it is IMPERATIVE that the admins choose someone with whom they mesh. After we voted for the best applicants, the people who got the most votes were invited to chat with us either in calls or in a chat room. We just spoke casually and saw how well we worked together. If it went well, we would vote again until we had unanimously decided on three. It's not a biased process in the least, if done correctly. The other admins have to agree as well, if someone is obviously pushing their friend, no matter how good they are, they will probably be shot down. Sorry, I'll rephrase: Chelsea is one of my favorite posters. She has keen judgement, keen awareness, intuition, and she speaks nothing but the truth. I would nominate her if it were possible. I understand that there are people here that are simply trying to raise their post count, but I believe Chelsea is trying to play a serious role in this forum. Because of her posts, I do my best to play a serious role in the forum as well.
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on May 10, 2010 11:08:08 GMT -5
Not applying, so saying this in the most unbiased way... Zang's argument does hold ground. Leading is not about choosing compatible people to help you make decisions with but to hopefully, with as much accuracy as possible, represent those you lead. That means thinking as they would. Its been said before that the way admins are been chosen right now is only a temporary thing, and that once the tribe grows it'll be a more democratic system. Well, if we can't handle it right now when we are only a couple of hundred people, how will we ever do it when we are talking about thousands? Another issue that seems to come up is if the people that the community chooses will have the skills required. This is specially a problem since not everything that an admin will do can be said, but it doesn't have to be a problem. Just like employers in job postings don't specify every task the new employee will do and only asks for experience and skills, the same can be applied here. Need some who has worked with groups before, has programing background, free time, or a combination of all? then just ask for that. Now, If it comes to be that someone makes it as an admin but doesn't start to act in the interest of the tribe, then it can be demoted by you or the rest of the pogotribe. 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. This would very well solve the popularity contest that would be expected. As to Real's response to Zang: 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'm quite sure not everyone knows the day to day tasks for a president, or a prime minister. Yet countries vote for their representatives and not only have done it for hundreds of years, but its done in a much much larger and unpersonalized way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On another note, I think the biggest source of misunderstanding comes from the title of admin it self. Some like myself see it as a government and others see it as a type of police. It would make sense in that way that who runs the police department is chosen by its own people, but as govn't that it'd be chosen by the people. Now, the reason why I don't think this is like a police depn't is because policemen only apply the law, they don't create it. More than once I've seen cases in which threads seem to follow the theme of "certain things are not discussable" or posts responding with "you can talk about it, but this is the way we are doing it". The question we must ask our selves is whether we are a community, and if you trust us enough to let it decide whats best for us. DFTBA
|
|
|
Post by Rob on May 10, 2010 11:39:12 GMT -5
As to Real's response to Zang: 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'm quite sure not everyone knows the day to day tasks for a president, or a prime minister. Yet countries vote for their representatives and not only have done it for hundreds of years, but its done in a much much larger and unpersonalized way. There are a couple of things wrong with that comparison, in my opinion. First, when selecting those positions, remember that there are millions and millions of people over the age of 18 voting. Here, there would be less than 7,000 people voting and a good portion of them are teenagers under 18. With that small amount of people and with that age group, unfair influence is much more likely. Second, at least in America, we know most of the minimum requirements to run for president. We've had presidents for over 200 years. I really think that though we do not know about how a president should handle himself day-to-day, we do know quite a good deal about what it takes to be a good president. The PogoTribe has only "officially" existed for a few months (but sorta-kinda existed ever since Dan became popular on YouTube). We really have absolutely no idea what it really takes to be a good admin. But the current admin team at least has SOME idea. So I think they're more qualified to make the decision. Third, choosing the president is choosing 1 person for a 1 person committee to lead our nation. It doesn't matter AT ALL if he gets along with anyone in Washington. That will have no effect on anything. Here, though, we would be picking 2 people for a 9-person committee to "lead" our community. It matters SO MUCH that they get along with the other admins. As we have seen, a group of admins in disarray (though it was only for a day or two) has the potential to spin our community out of control.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 10, 2010 11:45:42 GMT -5
Using Ricky's argument as a basis.
The admin's don't exactly create the law. They emphasize that the tribe as a whole creates the law. Certainly they enforce the law, and sometimes there are 'laws' that the tribe didn't come up with that the admins simply put in there because they are typical forum laws. But all in all - the admins are really just guiding the tribe in the method that policemen guide society. Rounding up bad guys, punishing bad guys, helping lost children, fixing vandalism, making sure everything in the community runs smoothly.
If that doesn't sound like the job of a policeman - then I'd like to meet your cops, they seem to have more interesting jobs.
Other points:
If the tribe voted on admins - it would be as much as a popularity contest as if the admins voted. Except for a few things. The tribe would seldom discuss in such great detail the pros and cons of EVERY choice. The tribe would, like any massive group, have a few zombies in it. And the tribe doesn't have to deal with the consequence of a sore thumb (someone who doesn't mesh well with the other admins).
If the admins don't get along, then there will be debate. Unfortunately, this means that simple decisions could take much longer to sort out than if everyone had similar ideas. That means that issues that require admins to sort out, could take much longer to carry out. As you can imagine this could be a very bad thing, as quick admin action is typically important for an internet community.
Another thing you should keep in mind (everyone who says we should be more democratic about the whole thing). 1. There are no true democratic countries in the world, only democratic republics where the people elect representatives. (please correct me if I'm wrong by providing an example of a true democracy) 2. Admins are not your representatives. They don't represent your ideas, opinions, or attitudes. They keep the peace - soldiers in the front against trolling and other misconduct. They have your best interest at heart - but don't make laws for you to follow. YOU make laws for you to follow. Admins electing admins is not a law of the tribe, its a law of admins - you don't get a vote for that law. When the tribe decides that the tribe is ready to elect representatives, I'm sure the admins will have no problem organizing and facilitating such a voting process, but keep in mind - admins are not the equivalent of representatives in a democratic republic, they are just here to keep the peace.
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on May 10, 2010 12:04:35 GMT -5
Trying to compare the job of an admin on this forum is kind of ridiculous. I freaking have the job, and I honestly can't think of anything to accurately compare it to. It's unique. More unique than you know.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on May 10, 2010 12:26:36 GMT -5
Trying to compare the job of an admin on this forum is kind of ridiculous. I freaking have the job, and I honestly can't think of anything to accurately compare it to. It's unique. More unique than you know. This intrigues me..
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 10, 2010 12:28:46 GMT -5
<---representative--------------------------uniqueness---admin--unique------police---->
? maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Breepop on May 10, 2010 12:29:03 GMT -5
Admins are not your representatives. They don't represent your ideas, opinions, or attitudes. They keep the peace - soldiers in the front against trolling and other misconduct. They have your best interest at heart - but don't make laws for you to follow. YOU make laws for you to follow. Admins electing admins is not a law of the tribe, its a law of admins - you don't get a vote for that law. When the tribe decides that the tribe is ready to elect representatives, I'm sure the admins will have no problem organizing and facilitating such a voting process, but keep in mind - admins are not the equivalent of representatives in a democratic republic, they are just here to keep the peace. Quoted for truth.
|
|
|
Post by AurAByrooN on May 10, 2010 12:31:16 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." Why cant admins ever tell us anything eh?
|
|
|
Post by Sean on May 10, 2010 12:41:25 GMT -5
OMG GUYS! Please lets not start this again. The admin choosing process is down to the current admins because they are admins and know what qualifications are needed. The qualifications are secret because some people would apply and lie to get in.
And why shouldn't they have stuff we dont know, it makes more sence that we know about stuff when it applies/makes sence. Just like dans secret project, you shouldnt give stuff like that away until its ready.
Admins should be treated with just as much respect as you would give anyone else. NOW PLEASE lets not start a karson thread again and keep it polite and respectful. _________________________________________________________________________________________
My reply: I don't think that the process in place now needs changing. Its about right that admins choose new admins.
|
|
|
Post by Ricky on May 10, 2010 12:49:07 GMT -5
Rob: Even if there are more people under the age of 18 here you can't really just expect them to follow blindly without even been asked for their opinion on the way things are ran. -------- You are right 200 years of experience with presidents, but just like that country decided upon the first president when it was still young, this tribe should be able to do the same. -------- I think the potential benefits outweigh the risks. @tyme: You have to agree with the fact that we are not a typical forum. I do think that when you said that the admins do act as policeman you were right. Yes, we created the values which act as a criminal code, but we haven't decided anything on the future of this community. As to the popularity contest thing was already addressed, the solution would be to make the entries anonymous. (for more info see my last post) Following your military metaphor. The way it works right now is like when there is a military coop and they take control of the govn't. If admins are not that govn't then we probably should make one and decide over what responsibilities belong to each.
|
|
|
Post by sarahendipity on May 10, 2010 13:09:52 GMT -5
Hey. New-ish admin here. Just want you to know that I had every expectation that I was NOT going to be picked because I was still fairly new to SPOTM at the time I applied. That said, when I found out I was picked, my face was like O__________O.
This has been said many times before in this thread: choosing admins is in no way a popularity contest. I mean, I understand your concern, Zang, that in your opinion, our process of choosing admins is not very good.
However, we let the forum do a lot of things and have so much freedom. Minus knowing what Dan's secret project is and picking who we work with, we don't really have THAT much power over everyone. We are just regular members, but with the privilege of guiding everyone in the right direction. We COULD be a lot more forceful if we wanted to, and yeah, we let you guys know when we are tweaking a few things here and there, but we are in no way a dictatorship. We allow everyone to argue and debate over topics like this, and we are allowed to voice our opinions as well. The value of "stand by what you know to be true" comes into play here.
From what I've seen, not many forums on the internet allow people to freely debate this much. I've seen so many admins on other forums be like OH HEY THIS PERSON IS WRONG. *DELETE THREAD* That's just ridiculous. Unless we see pornographic images, life-threatening things are being said, or something is completely and utterly inappropriate, we don't delete or lock your threads.
So please, just let us pick who we work with. We will consider every application until we find the people that we truly think will be perfect for the job. kthnxbai
|
|