# A suggestion to the Admins



## conneich (Jul 29, 2005)

Some admin faults come with appointing friends to the positions. I think what needs to be done is to have a third-party advisory panel of honest, nuetral people to help with conflicts etc. The people aren't friends with any admin (doesn't matter if they become friends with them as long as they don't take sides) and they don't take sides until evaluting the whole problem, and then discussing it amongst other admins not in the problem and the other advisory panel members. You call this a median between decision making since the third-party feels the effects of all adminstrative decisions more than the admins (they feel the effects of the third-parties reaction the changes, etc.). If done correctly, this could reduce admin and user conflicts, and also reduce the admins worry about conflict between users as the position to deal with that would be on the advisory panel. They'll get requests from a user about another. They'll get in touch with the other user(s) to question why they're having problems (leaving the other user anonymous) to hear both sides, then discuss amongst themselves what could/should be done. If it's just a civil thing then no admins need to get invovled and its just a matter of healing wounds, but if its something admins need to get into then a verdict is passed on to the admins of what should be done. In that, the AP has no adminstrative, or moderator, status, they are just an advisory panel. As well as taking care of disputes between users they'll all take care of suggestions made by users and, if logical and legitimate suggestions, pass them onto the admins for further review on if they should be taken to the dev department to put to work. Also, they'd have the second say in appointing new admins/mods to the site. An admin will have first say, but not, I repeat, but not have power to overrule the AP's decision. The AP members will question the new suggested admin about a few things to see if s/he is knowledgable, competant, and can hold the responsibility to maintaining the site as if it were their own.

If it hasn't sunk in yet, I'm basically saying the whole site needs a "Checks and Balances". It's not something I've actively seen done on a website, but with the site getting as big as it was, I think it was what was missing... A division between the user and admin, as well as admin between admin. And, like I said, if done _correctly_ there should be no problems and conflicts between admins, unless the admins don't consult or even listen to the AP's. This is only a suggestion that would most likely work quite well if it had full support of the administration and the common user of FA. I have some more but I'll have to give myself a rest so they can come back to me.

--Conneich


----------



## uncia2000 (Jul 29, 2005)

*listens*

Much good stuff in that, IMHO. Thanks, conneich.
Regardless of lack of apparent feedback thus far, I hope those points are being read and considered (by all of us). And on AF, too, phps?

02 cents, below. ymmv of course.

> conneich wrote:
> If it hasn't sunk in yet, I'm basically saying the whole site needs a
> "Checks and Balances". It's not something I've actively seen done on a
> website, but with the site getting as big as it was, I think it was what was
> missing...

If implemented well, with the right people, yes could certainly aid as a sounding board and in the feedback of issues (both directions) without "fear", by creating a more impartial grouping to monitor and flag issues with less danger of "entrenched positions" or worry about "loss of face".

Not a panacea for all troubles, though, and still requires admins, techs and general users alike to listen, understand and aid the community in their various ways.
The vast majority of our users are mature enough to make that work, though.

Stepping back further "what was missing" could also have been said to  have been a far wider grouping of admin, tech, test/monitoring, support &  co-ordination (funding, welcome teams/membership, publicity, ideas co-ord. groups, etc.), etc., peoples of all flavors and certainly not "24x7" commitments in most cases.
When action was finally taken to address such possibilities (e.g. the "beta test" team) it was probably too little, too late and not wide enough in scope, IMHO.
*
What chance would a front-page spammer have had if there were a half-dozen authorised FA users to kick their ass every time they turned up?

From my p.o.v., was unhappy to know that there were dozens of talented artists and other users around who were more than willing to lend a hand for the benefit of the community, yet could not be productively utilised in a structured fashion.
(Although it was noteworthy there were quite a few /individuals/ still trying to help things out).

> conneich wrote:
> This is only a suggestion that would most likely work quite well if it had
> full support of the administration and the common user of FA. I have
> some more but I'll have to give myself a rest so they can come back to
> me.

Not a bad start, I think!


----------



## Halfshell (Jul 30, 2005)

Not all of the admin were pic just cuz we're freinds, so of us do have a history of running sites and message boards.

My self ran a very steady and popular ninja turtle site for a good 5 yrs and a digimon one for a good 3 yrs.

i do know scripting and encoding as well, c++, html. phpbb, ccs, etc. just jheryn wrote the codes himself so only he knows the true backbone to the scripting and coding.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 30, 2005)

My own background includes two years as CRM support for Ultima Online as "Counselor Saracen" and later and training in the official GM team (before half the program was terminated and shipped of to India), not to mention having been being con operations staff at AnthroCon.


----------



## Halfshell (Jul 30, 2005)

I mean i wasnt an active admin like the others were but i kept up with the news and updates.


----------



## Suule (Jul 30, 2005)

The reason why I'm an AOP at #FurAffinity is that I'm managing a lot of communities there on Furnet and know most of the IRCOps.


----------



## uncia2000 (Jul 30, 2005)

*feels reassured by "experience"*

(... all somewhat digressing from conneich's forward-looking "suggestion" points, though )


----------



## conneich (Aug 1, 2005)

I never really said that any of the admins were inexperienced, nor did I imply it, at administrating the site. It's just that having friends fill admin positions isn't a good idea. I've done it before when I didn't know and learned the hard way a few times v.v Being friends with them is one thing, but once you work with them, they're different people that can lead to getting frustrated and cause conflict between them.


----------



## Suule (Aug 1, 2005)

Well conneich. Face the fact: It's better to appoint people who you know and trust rather than complete strangers. Actually I'm friends with many admins, and we throw work aside when we talk. If work gets to us, then we need to take a vacation.


----------



## Urbskie (Aug 1, 2005)

*keep relationships outta the work place*

the best thing would be to keep all love intrests, relationships and the like out of the work place. it will only end in tears and fights and chaos.  its happened to many times..


----------



## deadly4u (Aug 1, 2005)

Time to pitch in my 2 cents.

In my opinion and full experience, hiring friends or very people im VERY well aquianted with has ALWAYS led me to problems.

My experience includes the administration of a hosting company (soon to go out of business), and the running of too non-internet businesses.

In my hosting business, (my very first business), i was inexperienced at being the leader of a team of employees. So, my first instinct was to hire hard working, experienced, and PROFESSIONAL candidates, but to make things easier, i looked for those kind of people among my friends. Doing this made me limit my possibilities for a good staff. Anyways, after running the business for about a year, my friends, being friends, decided to be a little cavalier and slack off their work a bit, thinking that i would let it slide a tad... Which i did. Some of them took the liberty of being pro-active in taking control over certain jobs, such as server admin duties, and technician duties. They figured i could trust them. Which i did, so i let them.  But MANY months later. They thought that they needed more power and more pay, but that was too much to offer, so i finally said no.

THAT WAS MY BUSINESS' downfall. After letting them cavalierly settle in, refusing to give them what they wanted caused them to revolt.

They PHUCKED with my systems and damaged data. Costing me more than i was able to afford.


ANYWAYS, thats my bit of experience with hiring friends.

P.S.  This was their behavior IN A WORKPLACE.... OUTSIDE our goofy relationships.


----------

