Admin Team Shakeup

[Belschaft]

No, we can't apparently. Escade tried to propose a temporary solution, and Hileville has refused. Instead, he's just going to keep on going doing what he's doing and the region can got to hell.

[HEM]

 

 

 I have no problem talking with individually but SB and HEM made it pretty clear they want no conversation to take place last night on IRC.

 

Can I respectfully ask what in the name of sam-hill you are talking about?

[Horse]

No it really isn't. I have no problem talking with individually but SB and HEM made it pretty clear they want no conversation to take place last night on IRC.

If this community believes these decision were wrong I will understand and do everything in my power to make a forum move as easy as possible.

Being on the IRC last night, I say wat to this post.

[Todd McCloud]

Here is the list of admin action count on these forums.  This includes everyone who has at some point had access to the ACP.

 

admin_actions.png 

Hileville - 3046 actions taken

Belschaft - 235 actions taken

Carta - 85 actions taken

Eluvatar - 56 actions taken

tsunamy - 40 actions taken (tsu is also being returned to admin status)

rebeltopia - 31 actions taken

Southern Bellz - 28 actions taken

HEM - 20 actions taken

Drugged Monkeys - 12 actions taken (DM has been very active on our test forum learning the forum software and how to do more technical level things)

Tsrill - 2 actiosn taken

Todd - 2 actions taken

raw - 1 action taken (wrote the throwback theme which was paid for)

Fudgie - 1 action taken

I know I'm still "retired", but this has always been a question of mine. Is there some kind of quota that admins need to fulfill? When I was working I mostly helped / answered stuff on the forums, especially in the back room. I thought that'd be alright, especially considering most of the actions (and this is just a guess) involve making citizens.

[Hileville]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hileville" data-cid="121410" data-time="1395414239">Here is the list of admin action count on these forums. This includes everyone who has at some point had access to the ACP.

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://forums.thesouthpacific.org/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=84">admin_actions.png</a>

Hileville - 3046 actions taken

Belschaft - 235 actions taken

Carta - 85 actions taken

Eluvatar - 56 actions taken

tsunamy - 40 actions taken (tsu is also being returned to admin status)

rebeltopia - 31 actions taken

Southern Bellz - 28 actions taken

HEM - 20 actions taken

Drugged Monkeys - 12 actions taken (DM has been very active on our test forum learning the forum software and how to do more technical level things)

Tsrill - 2 actiosn taken

Todd - 2 actions taken

raw - 1 action taken (wrote the throwback theme which was paid for)

Fudgie - 1 action taken

I know I'm still "retired", but this has always been a question of mine. Is there some kind of quota that admins need to fulfill? When I was working I mostly helped / answered stuff on the forums, especially in the back room. I thought that'd be alright, especially considering most of the actions (and this is just a guess) involve making citizens.</blockquote>You always came through when needed. Checking the masking thread, admin requests, answering questions, looking out for overall security of the forum are huge portions of this. Being able to be relied on if the need arises.


The admins that were removed weren't doing any of this.

[tsunamy]

Alright. So we need to have fuller options between: 1. leave everything as is; and 2. replacing Hile as root admin.

 

As I've said privately and publicly, being root admin is not a delightful position to be in. Frankly, as of late, being an admin has exactly been a piece of cake (or pie).

 

Hile: As I said, I feel your position. It's hard to get people to do something like administrator a forum. It's a voluntary job and often -- for a variety of reasons -- things often get passed along to the root. Then, when the root does take action there is often backlash. As of which Hile has indicated he's frustrated with.

 

To everyone else: We need to come to an agreement with Hile on how things like this should be handled. We can't really go about legislating this (at least too much), because it just complicates the entire situation. It makes the whole process less fun and makes the root admin more unhappy and combative. And, further, in some cases Hile might need to make quick decisions.

 

These tensions don't go away. They get heightened and heightened until something gives. Or until someone leaves the game for five years. I still remember when I had a similar fight with someone -- I don't remember who anymore -- and angrily told Fudgie that I was going to pass the root admin to her because it was all too much to handle. Obviously, I didn't, but that was the tipping point where I limited my exposure to NS for several years.

 

Honestly, I don't think replacing Hile as root admin would solve this problem. Eventually, the same concerns would be brought up against anyone in that role.

 

This is a matter of everyone wanting what is best for the region. There's no right or wrong sides, we're just friends with a common interest that need to find some sort of common ground.

 

So let's start from two divergent questions.

 

First, Hile -- where are you willing to meet us? Can we codify a process with such decisions will be handled by the full slate of admins? Can we have the Assembly approve your choice of admins? Can we give the Assembly the power to recall admins? Where/how can we set this up?

 

Second, for the community -- what would make everyone feel comfortable with keeping Hile as root admin? What would we like to see and/or have in place to keep the forums running as is?

[HEM]

I'll be honest Tsu, I'm not sure I trust Hileville to follow through with any sort of deal or arrangement. After we expressed our disapproval with his removal of Belshaft, Hileville promised that, "In the future I will message admins before a removal happens unless there are extenuating circumstances. I don't see this happening in the foreseeable future though. Also if Bel approaches any of you about this direct him to me."

 

It took him a whole, what, like three days to break his policy? It's becoming clear to me that Hileville doesn't have much respect for the rules -- even ones he makes. The progression of this thread has just shredded my trust in him further, to be completely honest.

[tsunamy]

I'll be honest Tsu, I'm not sure I trust Hileville to follow through with any sort of deal or arrangement. After we expressed our disapproval with his removal of Belshaft, Hileville promised that, "In the future I will message admins before a removal happens unless there are extenuating circumstances. I don't see this happening in the foreseeable future though. Also if Bel approaches any of you about this direct him to me."

 

It took him a whole, what, like three days to break his policy? It's becoming clear to me that Hileville doesn't have much respect for the rules -- even ones he makes. The progression of this thread has just shredded my trust in him further, to be completely honest.

 

Thanks for this HEM. While I certainly understand the sentiment, I'd like to think that we're not nearly divided as we currently seem.

 

Either way, I think your post is much more in the direction this thread should be going, as opposed to the name calling, accusations and fighting the thread started out with.

[Hileville]

DM was advised of this change before the post was made. Tsu received a message shortly after.


I have no issue with allowing admins to be recalled as long as the power to remove admins still remains when needed. As stated there is a discussion that started with the current admin team which will produce a codified policy. I have no issue with having Assembly confirmation on changes to that policy.


The quoted text by HEM was in response to complaints by members of the admin team about getting messages from Bel. I made it clear that I will handle communication as multiple people didn't want to talk with Bel about this.

[HEM]

DM was advised of this change before the post was made. Tsu received a message shortly after.


I have no issue with allowing admins to be recalled as long as the power to remove admins still remains when needed. As stated there is a discussion that started with the current admin team which will produce a codified policy. I have no issue with having Assembly confirmation on changes to that policy.


The quoted text by HEM was in response to complaints by members of the admin team about getting messages from Bel. I made it clear that I will handle communication as multiple people didn't want to talk with Bel about this.

 

My point is that I never got a message informing me of my removal

[Hileville]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hileville" data-cid="121531" data-time="1395432740">DM was advised of this change before the post was made. Tsu received a message shortly after.


I have no issue with allowing admins to be recalled as long as the power to remove admins still remains when needed. As stated there is a discussion that started with the current admin team which will produce a codified policy. I have no issue with having Assembly confirmation on changes to that policy.


The quoted text by HEM was in response to complaints by members of the admin team about getting messages from Bel. I made it clear that I will handle communication as multiple people didn't want to talk with Bel about this.

My point is that I never got a message informing me of my removal </blockquote>You were no longer a member of the admin team.

[HEM]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="HEM" data-cid="121532" data-time="1395432853">
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hileville" data-cid="121531" data-time="1395432740">
DM was advised of this change before the post was made. Tsu received a message shortly after.


I have no issue with allowing admins to be recalled as long as the power to remove admins still remains when needed. As stated there is a discussion that started with the current admin team which will produce a codified policy. I have no issue with having Assembly confirmation on changes to that policy.


The quoted text by HEM was in response to complaints by members of the admin team about getting messages from Bel. I made it clear that I will handle communication as multiple people didn't want to talk with Bel about this.

My point is that I never got a message informing me of my removal </blockquote>
You were no longer a member of the admin team.
 


</blockquote>
 

Let me spell this out for you:

 

"...In the future I will message admins before a removal happens..." - Hileville (aka you)

 

You promised to message administrators BEFORE a removal happened. That means, that prior to be being removed, I should have been notified of my removal (as well as my other esteemed peers).

 

You have shown us absolutely no respect in these proceedings, which is the very least that all members of this community deserve. Respect.

[Rebel-topia]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="HEM" data-cid="121532" data-time="1395432853">
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hileville" data-cid="121531" data-time="1395432740">
DM was advised of this change before the post was made. Tsu received a message shortly after.


I have no issue with allowing admins to be recalled as long as the power to remove admins still remains when needed. As stated there is a discussion that started with the current admin team which will produce a codified policy. I have no issue with having Assembly confirmation on changes to that policy.


The quoted text by HEM was in response to complaints by members of the admin team about getting messages from Bel. I made it clear that I will handle communication as multiple people didn't want to talk with Bel about this.

My point is that I never got a message informing me of my removal </blockquote>
You were no longer a member of the admin team.
 


</blockquote>
But thats not how its supposed to work, Hile.

When someone, anyone, is to be removed, the admin team is supposed to get a message BEFORE the removal.

[North East Somerset]

The Charter refers to an "administrator and moderators team". It does not elevate any one member of the team above the rest. So it's pretty clear that what is going on currently is not what the Charter intended. The ROOT is just taking decisions unilaterally, and only going to a Team decision when there is an uproar, like over the Unibot banning.

 

The region needs to make a choice to amend the Charter and have the ROOT in full control of administrative policy, or to instigate a team system. The current situation and lack of clarity in connection to it has already proved damaging, and will continue to do so.

 

I'm not saying there is a right or a wrong answer, I've seen both solutions work in the past. But the region needs to make this decision consciously, and by region I mean the Assembly -rather than let an argument and power battle unfold over the issue.

[tsunamy]

 

I'm not saying there is a right or a wrong answer, I've seen both solutions work in the past. But the region needs to make this decision consciously, and by region I mean the Assembly -rather than let an argument and power battle unfold over the issue.

 

Argument? Who said anything about an argument? :ph34r:

[Hileville]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hileville" data-cid="121533" data-time="1395432884">
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="HEM" data-cid="121532" data-time="1395432853">
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hileville" data-cid="121531" data-time="1395432740">DM was advised of this change before the post was made. Tsu received a message shortly after.


I have no issue with allowing admins to be recalled as long as the power to remove admins still remains when needed. As stated there is a discussion that started with the current admin team which will produce a codified policy. I have no issue with having Assembly confirmation on changes to that policy.


The quoted text by HEM was in response to complaints by members of the admin team about getting messages from Bel. I made it clear that I will handle communication as multiple people didn't want to talk with Bel about this.

My point is that I never got a message informing me of my removal </blockquote>You were no longer a member of the admin team.
</blockquote>
But thats not how its supposed to work, Hile.

When someone, anyone, is to be removed, the admin team is supposed to get a message BEFORE the removal.</blockquote>You misunderstood what I said. The rest of the remaining admins would be notified of a change. Not the other way around.

[HEM]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rebeltopia" data-cid="121536" data-time="1395433478">
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hileville" data-cid="121533" data-time="1395432884">
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="HEM" data-cid="121532" data-time="1395432853">
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hileville" data-cid="121531" data-time="1395432740">
DM was advised of this change before the post was made. Tsu received a message shortly after.


I have no issue with allowing admins to be recalled as long as the power to remove admins still remains when needed. As stated there is a discussion that started with the current admin team which will produce a codified policy. I have no issue with having Assembly confirmation on changes to that policy.


The quoted text by HEM was in response to complaints by members of the admin team about getting messages from Bel. I made it clear that I will handle communication as multiple people didn't want to talk with Bel about this.

My point is that I never got a message informing me of my removal </blockquote>
You were no longer a member of the admin team.</blockquote>
But thats not how its supposed to work, Hile.

When someone, anyone, is to be removed, the admin team is supposed to get a message BEFORE the removal.</blockquote>
You misunderstood what I said. The rest of the remaining admins would be notified of a change. Not the other way around.
 


</blockquote>
 

I literally just quoted your words, that's not what you said. 

[Punk D]

I think Tsu's approach is the correct one. We could argue about the ethics of Hile's actions. Reading these 4 pages, I can say without at doubt that it is not the approach I would take as a root admin. But, that doesn't help solve the present problem that many of us have - Hile talking unilateral decisions without consult with his fellow team members. This isn't the first time this has happened and I think we need to face the reality that Hile as ROOT admin may take similar unilateral action again. 

 

Thus we need to take Tsu's approach an answer his second question

for the community -- what would make everyone feel comfortable with keeping Hile as root admin? What would we like to see and/or have in place to keep the forums running as is?

 

I would feel comfortable with Hile not removing inactive admins before a formal vote of the active admins takes place. For real inactivity, say not logging into the forums for a period of time, we should have established rules for those instances. But, I think Hile making unilateral decisions is not good. As a community, we need to define what we want. Hile can look at it and if it's not something he is comfortable with, we'll have to make our own decisions from that point.

[tsunamy]

Hile -- for clarity, can I just ask: what's the point of informing people after the fact? I think the idea if to discuss before the decisions are made, rather than informing of the decree?

[Ryccia]

Hmm... I can tell that Hileville is taking a beating with his own words. Auch, I been there. It hurts.

[Belschaft]

Second, for the community -- what would make everyone feel comfortable with keeping Hile as root admin? What would we like to see and/or have in place to keep the forums running as is?

To start with, there needs to be an end to unilateral actions. This isn't an area where we need new rules or procedures, as we have existing ones. The problem here is that Hile is ignoring them, constantly. That has to stop, period.


Further, this isn't a case of no more unilateral action from now on; the actions that Hile took that caused this crisis have to be reversed. You don't get to remove six members of the admin team unilaterally and then simply promise never to do it again.


Secondly, communication. It has been appalling to the point of being non-existent. The first time people are informed the root is unhappy with their work or has issues with them cannot be a public post about their dismissal.


Thirdly, oversight and accountability. Hile cannot prevent the admin team from voting to override his actions. If he does so then there isn't an admin team.


Finally, the threats of "If you don't like it, move forums" have to end. This region cannot be held hostage by the root admin whenever he doesn't get his own way. Hile either commits to hosting these forums regardless of this, or hands them over to someone who will not blackmail the region.

[Hileville]

I think it would be best if we just decide to break ties. I'm no longer willing to put money into this community. I would appreciate it if everyone begin working out the particulars of a forum move.

[Belschaft]

Very well then. We'll need a few days to work out the technical aspects I imagine, and then we'll need to amend the Charter.

[tsunamy]

No, no, no, no, no! No! This is NOT how this is going to go down!

 

What happened? We're trying to reach to some sort of common ground. We're not taking our marbles and going home.

 

Everyone involved in this discussion has been a valued member of TSP and will continue to be after this spat. That's it. End of story.

[Belschaft]

Tsu, if Hile is no longer willing to host these forums then he is no longer willing to host these forums.