Share
Go down
avatar
Join date : 2018-01-11
Reputation : 4
Posts : 35
View user profile

TWHS Administration

on Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:49 pm
Message reputation : 100% (1 vote)
The way I'm doing this is backwards, but what I have below is the proposed page that I have most completed so far, and so I'm posting it first. Simply put, the spoiler contains one of my proposed threads for the site's administration. If it gets any traction, I'll finish up other posts.

The threads would be posted in the Tavern, with the main thread being "Rules and Constitution" that would establish baselines for the community and, for the constitution, promote staff transparency and determine how they can go about big decisions. The text refers to rules and the constitution, which I am still formulating a proposal for in the background. It also relates to a forum that does not exist, and is intended to be part of a different suggestion regarding an official means for users to complain if they don't want to go to an individual admin with their problem. Something this big would obviously need approval from both members and current staff, so below is a taste of the suggestions.

Threads would include the main rules/constitution thread, the ranks thread and the guide reference. The proposed forum would be (in this early form) called "Grievances", intended to be the public outlet for user issues if, again, they don't want to approach any individual admin.

Post:

*
Site Structure & Administration
The Total War Hotseats forum wishes to allow game admins to be as autonomous as possible and allow members to do as they wish. The staff of this site currently operate in an advisory role, only taking action when a fundamental rule is broken.

These are the leadership roles members may assume, with other roles coming at the bottom. of this post.

Game Admins____________________
Game Admin is the most easily achieved role. It is a complimentary title for someone who manages a hotseat on the site, in one or more of the game sections. The role itself offers no special permissions; when you become a Game Admin, you will be granted moderator permissions in the appropriate forum section. There you will be able to structure the hotseat as you like along with your co-admins. Be sure to tell Hotseat Staff that you want your co-admins to have moderator permissions as well.

If the main admin becomes inactive on the forum (say, over a couple weeks of absence in a forum section), the co-admin will automatically gain moderator permissions in the forum section as well as authority over the hotseat until the original admin's return. If both co-admins become absent and players wish to continue instead of making a new game, Hotseat Staff will attempt to recover the hotseat if possible. Otherwise, if there is no system to  recover the admin password and no way to continue, the players will likely need to start a new game.

The Game Admin title will remain on a user until such a time that they are no longer managing any hotseats.

Hotseat Staff____________________
Hotseat Staff are the mediators and game admins who have been recognized for contributing to the site and/or proving a reliable record of being an effective game administrator. This role takes into account maturity, admin skill, and reliability. It gains members from a vote by Administrators and Hotseat Staff, as outlined in the Constitution.

Hotseat Staff are moderators, but the actual moderator duties mostly take place in the Tavern as needed. Otherwise, Game Admins have complete autonomy in their subforums, with the following exceptions:
- A site rule is broken;
- A vast majority of players from the admin's hotseat as well as someone with the admin password wish to forcibly remove the admin;
- The site is spammed or trolled by (presumably new) users with no intent of contributing to the community, in which case, Hotseat Staff will eliminate them where they appear;
- Illegal/highly immoral acts have been committed by an involved user, in which case, the user (or even admin) will be removed from the site and reported accordingly.

Members can nominate another member to join Hotseat Staff, which will be reviewed by current Hotseat Staff and Administrators and determined by a vote. Misbehaving Hotseat Staff can be either reported to an Admin or reported publically in the Grievance forum, where there will not be repercussions for stating your issue and presenting your case.

Administrators____________________
As the name implies, Administrators keep the site running and work on the backend of the site. They are determined at the site's formation, and remain static in their positions unless they are outed by a majority of Hotseat Staff and fellow Administrators (as per the Constitution). Their jobs are to keep the site running and make tweaks and improvements across the boards, though they should never meddle in an ongoing hotseat game without a clear reason supported by the rules/Constitution. In other words, they maintain the backend and update information such as this when needed, but in terms of moderating authority they are equal to Hotseat Staff.

An administrator may be promoted by a majority vote, as per the Constitution, that includes both Hotseat Staff and current administrators. If there are more than four Hotseat Staff, and they are all in opposition to the Administrators, the Hotseat Staff have a majority vote by default.

Mod Creators____________________
This is a role that can be joined by anyone who has created mods, either ones that are in use by current hotseats or mods larger in scope.  There are no special permissions to this title, nor is there any authority beyond “I make mods” associated with it.

You can join by asking an administrator if you can join the group, and the administrator will either ask what you’ve made, or they will already know and put you in the group accordingly.


avatar
Site Owner
Join date : 2018-01-11
Reputation : 7
Posts : 149
Location : Brno, Czech Republic
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:34 pm
Well, sounds as a good start.

Tho, I think the part about co-admins etc is pretty unnecessary. I dont think we can make separate group for each admin, so all admins will have moderation abilities in all hotseat threads, although ehtically allowed to edit their own stuff only, naturally.

Hotseat Staff should also have right to decide to limit hotseat creation and things like that (as written in the thread about how to start a hotseat), although in the upcomming connstituion there should be ways for the community to outvote hotsat staff decisions I assume and things like that. Plus, they would be also hosting tournaments, giving awards etc. In general, they are the ones responsible for bringing in new content and keeping the community going.

Administrators should although probably be the top in moderation, not equal to the staff (especially in case of dispute amongst of staff). And they shouldnt be permanent, but elected for a period (although Im not sure if I can remove myself from it), lets say 3 months ( or less if massively outvoted I guess). I would say there should always be three, one elected by the Staff, one elected by Admins and one by players. Tho, if I cant remove myself I suppose I would have to be the third (and admins would elect together with players), but with some limited rights. Maybe it could be just done that way, one administrator would be for moderation, one for The Staff and the one taking care of the site (me).

_________________
Join date : 2018-01-13
Reputation : 2
Posts : 10
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:41 pm
Message reputation : 100% (2 votes)
I like the discrepancy between administrators and Hotseat Staff. I think for stabilities sake, Administrators should be removed only by hotseat staff. But any hotseat staff additions should be based on the vote of the greater community as I think this provides the transparency we need. Otherwise Hotseat Staff is just another body of unelected officials with the limited right to make decisions
avatar
Join date : 2018-01-11
Reputation : 4
Posts : 35
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Sun Jan 28, 2018 9:47 pm
@Jadli wrote:Well, sounds as a good start.

Tho, I think the part about co-admins etc is pretty unnecessary. I dont think we can make separate group for each admin, so all admins will have moderation abilities in all hotseat threads, although ehtically allowed to edit their own stuff only, naturally.
I heartily disagree with this, because you do not need to create groups. Admins are fully capable of being restricted to operate in their own forums. On the backend, it is a matter of assigning moderator permissions by user, and not by rank. By default, Game Admin rank should give nothing. It is when you go into the user and give them moderator perms over their own games that they get powers. Leaving it to ethics, in light of the option to assign permissions by user, is highly insecure and unnecessary.

@Jadli wrote:Hotseat Staff should also have right to decide to limit hotseat creation and things like that (as written in the thread about how to start a hotseat), although in the upcomming connstituion there should be ways for the community to outvote hotsat staff decisions I assume and things like that. Plus, they would be also hosting tournaments, giving awards etc. In general, they are the ones responsible for bringing in new content and keeping the community going.
For the most part, yes; limiting hotseat creation and such could be established in the constitution/rules (I think I’ve already touched base on that in another doc I’m preparing anyways). Outvoting staff decisions will certainly be a function, or at the very least, the ability to appeal their decisions when they are made through the aforementioned medium. Hotseat staff can be responsible for new content and keeping the community up, yes, but I believe they should be about even in terms of providing content, giving rewards, etc. What I mean by that is, Game Admins I wouldn’t mind being able to offer their own rewards and generally do their thing to the same extent a member of hotseat staff could (obviously outside of moderation and site decisions), so long as it’s established that Game Admins do not represent site staff and so long as the reach of a game admin is limited to the things he can create.

@Jadli wrote:Administrators should although probably be the top in moderation, not equal to the staff (especially in case of dispute amongst of staff). And they shouldnt be permanent, but elected for a period (although Im not sure if I can remove myself from it), lets say 3 months ( or less if massively outvoted I guess).
I would say in terms of regular moderation, admins are equal, but in cases of dispute where there is a tie, the admins carry the “+1” authority to break it. The primary purpose of an admin, in my view, is to keep the backend of the site running in ways that the Hotseat Staff may not necessarily be able to do.

@Jadli wrote:I would say there should always be three, one elected by the Staff, one elected by Admins and one by players. Tho, if I cant remove myself I suppose I would have to be the third (and admins would elect together with players), but with some limited rights. Maybe it could be just done that way, one administrator would be for moderation, one for The Staff and the one taking care of the site (me).
Three is a reasonable cap. Elected by staff works (simple, doesn’t need much of a process) but as I say to Themzr, the election system – especially for a title so large as an admin – must be fully well designed and virtually invulnerable to abuse. I am always weary of elections on the internet. While it sounds like a good idea, the practicality may vary, given factors such as sabotage, cliques/tiny group of interested voters, and overcomplicating a site that is, at the very core, a Hotseating site where people just want to play. A fully structured government for such a scope I feel is unnecessary, and while I promote transparency, the majority of what staff do, should be done in a way that it does not affect the normal operations of hotseat games.

One discrepancy I’d like to iron out is permissions and roles. Hotseat Staff would naturally have a good array of permissions, possibly even the creation of actual forums, but beyond that I feel further permissions to be out of scope for the position. Admin would, as the name implies, have fingers into everything. That leads to a question for me – what will truly be the jobs of admins? What are they obligated to do, beyond handle the usual backend and break ties?

@themzr wrote:I like the discrepancy between administrators and Hotseat Staff. I think for stabilities sake, Administrators should be removed only by hotseat staff. But any hotseat staff additions should be based on the vote of the greater community as I think this provides the transparency we need. Otherwise Hotseat Staff is just another body of unelected officials with the limited right to make decisions

Election by the greater community has two potential issues, which are part of why I am advocating for a "transparent oligarchy" over a proper 'republic' system. The first is community engagement; that is, a nomination can be posed by a smaller group or as many people that feel like caring, while elections are only valid if the vast majority of a community agrees. Otherwise, you may end up with the verbose minority who bother and the majority who don't care. The second point is relative to verbose minorities - a system would have to be planned out and executed well, ensuring accuracy and minimizing cliques voting in incompetents or trolling groups from entering and completely legally sabotaging the system, all while not being intrusive to gameplay. My proposal is to have a somewhat transparent system, capable of retaining trust, but also resistant to the whims of certain types of users who think they know what they're doing but really don't when they are pushing someone who is equally incapable into a position of authority, as well as resistant (note: not immune) to cliques where all the members of one section back a single member, either to advance their own interests or sabotage the site's autonomy.

I'm not opposed to the concept of elected staff, but the way I see it, it's not nearly as easy to execute as it looks. The election system must be designed against sabotage, designed to engage members and designed to be representative of a community that, for the most part, just wants to play hotseat games.

A closed loop has its own problems, no doubt about that - the system I propose is far from perfect and runs a future risk of elitist staff who are either all buddies of each other or a chaotic set of staff that vote by 'party lines'. But a badly or scantly designed election system has equal risks while being more complicated to maintain on a site with simple goals.


Last edited by CommodusIV on Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:20 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Fixed broken quotes >.<)
avatar
Join date : 2018-01-16
Reputation : 1
Posts : 43
Location : Hungary
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:08 pm
We could copy some of what is used or was used in the hungarian community forum for total war. There was 2 admins, under them was 1 or 2 so called "main coordinators", under them were 2 elected coordinators for hotseating every 3 month.
We could use it that there are average staff members and that they elect their 1 or 2 leader, above them could be the main admins or someone who is between them with a role.
In the case that under the main admins there is only the staff leaders, they should relatively have a free hand and the admins should be involved when it is necessary or asked.

As for what the admins need to do is more or less be as a present on the forum and try to improve it in anyway other than this yes I believe they should be needed only when their intervention is needed. They could host a hotseat I believe if they want, but then they should act like a normal admin or hotseat staff, should a problem arise and not immediately intervene with his full power like Soul did.
Of course this has the problem that the admin needs to be a person with a personality who can actually do that.
This could be also solved that the admins don't host hotseats, maybe they only play in it, but then they have to abide to the local hotseat admin.

_________________
"Ah, the blood of Ouroboros protects you from defeat!
You leave me no other option, than to stage an ignominious retreat!
To me, infernal ghouls, and see to the serpent's death
While I take the time to catch my breath!"
avatar
Join date : 2018-01-11
Reputation : 4
Posts : 35
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:25 pm
@Dragon. wrote:We could copy some of what is used or was used in the hungarian community forum for total war. There was 2 admins, under them was 1 or 2 so called "main coordinators", under them were 2 elected coordinators for hotseating every 3 month.
We could use it that there are average staff members and that they elect their 1 or 2 leader, above them could be the main admins or someone who is between them with a role.
In the case that under the main admins there is only the staff leaders, they should relatively have a free hand and the admins should be involved when it is necessary or asked.
My question again becomes one of execution - how will the electoral system be designed? In what form will it take, that will make it resistant to abuse? I am not involved on the hungarian community forum, nor do I intend to go there, so I'm afraid saying to copy it doesn't ring any bells with me. I don't quite have the time to create such things in regards to an electoral system, but I could integrate solid suggestions into other things that I'm cooking up. The rest of the structure seems acceptable, though I'd have to see it presented in a usable way.

@Dragon. wrote:As for what the admins need to do is more or less be as a present on the forum and try to improve it in anyway other than this yes I believe they should be needed only when their intervention is needed. They could host a hotseat I believe if they want, but then they should act like a normal admin or hotseat staff, should a problem arise and not immediately intervene with his full power like Soul did.
Of course this has the problem that the admin needs to be a person with a personality who can actually do that.
This could be also solved that the admins don't host hotseats, maybe they only play in it, but then they have to abide to the local hotseat admin.

I think they should be able to host a hotseat and participate in them, but not have the actual authority to interfere in anything that doesn't clearly break site rules (and not intervene in a case where the local game admin could handle the issue). In other words, short of rules being badly broken, they would operate as the regular user on the forum, plus of course the backend permissions and seat of authority in staff.
avatar
Join date : 2018-01-16
Reputation : 1
Posts : 43
Location : Hungary
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:52 pm
In the forum it was a democratical vote, where one of the main admin posted the time for the election and listing who can be and can't be voted. For instance the previous staff leaders can't be voted again, if their term just ended, so one person can't be always a leader.
And the voting is made in private so no one apart from the admin who received the vote and the voter knows for whom they voted.

_________________
"Ah, the blood of Ouroboros protects you from defeat!
You leave me no other option, than to stage an ignominious retreat!
To me, infernal ghouls, and see to the serpent's death
While I take the time to catch my breath!"
avatar
Site Owner
Join date : 2018-01-11
Reputation : 7
Posts : 149
Location : Brno, Czech Republic
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:51 pm
@CommodusIV wrote:
I heartily disagree with this, because you do not need to create groups. Admins are fully capable of being restricted to operate in their own forums. On the backend, it is a matter of assigning moderator permissions by user, and not by rank. By default, Game Admin rank should give nothing. It is when you go into the user and give them moderator perms over their own games that they get powers. Leaving it to ethics, in light of the option to assign permissions by user, is highly insecure and unnecessary.
Well, thats true, we could make permission (or "groups") per person, as it seems there more than enough of them

@CommodusIV wrote:
What I mean by that is, Game Admins I wouldn’t mind being able to offer their own rewards and generally do their thing to the same extent a member of hotseat staff could (obviously outside of moderation and site decisions), so long as it’s established that Game Admins do not represent site staff and so long as the reach of a game admin is limited to the things he can create.

@Dragon. wrote:As for what the admins need to do is more or less be as a present on the forum and try to improve it in anyway other than this yes I believe they should be needed only when their intervention is needed. They could host a hotseat I believe if they want, but then they should act like a normal admin or hotseat staff, should a problem arise and not immediately intervene with his full power like Soul did.
Of course this has the problem that the admin needs to be a person with a personality who can actually do that.
This could be also solved that the admins don't host hotseats, maybe they only play in it, but then they have to abide to the local hotseat admin.

I dont think we need to dig much into how the hotseats are run, only into how the community is run. Hotseats are run by hotseats admin(s), and each admin has full authority in his hotseats, (or the hotseat host/creator in case its not he same person, some expected agreement between them is expected...). Hotseat Staff cant have have  much say on how the hotseats are runned, nor should have any, unless there is extreme stuff. If players dont indentify themselves with the way the admin/creator/host runs his hotsets they probably shouldnt join them. It is up to everyone which hotseats he joins, and there is more than enough options.

Admins are of course free to offer any kinds of rewards of their own, but site rewards can be naturally offered only by Hotseat Staff hotseats.

As for the relationship between staffers and members, yes, they should have no privilege above other members, and I see no reason to not let them join/host hotseats (host only unofficial of course, for official there must be some communication with other staffers). As I mentionned above about admins, in relation between admin - players, a staffer is equal to any other player in that HS (unless he is an admin naturally). As well in  other casual situations is staff equal to other members, unles its some staff/organization matter (that was its supposed to work on TWC, but oh well). When there are some moderation issues etc, the staff/moderators should try to sort it out by talking to the member first, to avoid some public drama (via what Dragon said about Soul above).

I would also ask you both to distinguish site administration, hotseat staff and game admins, seems you are using one same word for all three...  Crying or Very sad


@CommodusIV wrote:
Three is a reasonable cap. Elected by staff works (simple, doesn’t need much of a process) but as I say to Themzr, the election system – especially for a title so large as an admin – must be fully well designed and virtually invulnerable to abuse. I am always weary of elections on the internet. While it sounds like a good idea, the practicality may vary, given factors such as sabotage, cliques/tiny group of interested voters, and overcomplicating a site that is, at the very core, a Hotseating site where people just want to play. A fully structured government for such a scope I feel is unnecessary, and while I promote transparency, the majority of what staff do, should be done in a way that it does not affect the normal operations of hotseat games.

One discrepancy I’d like to iron out is permissions and roles. Hotseat Staff would naturally have a good array of permissions, possibly even the creation of actual forums, but beyond that I feel further permissions to be out of scope for the position. Admin would, as the name implies, have fingers into everything. That leads to a question for me – what will truly be the jobs of admins? What are they obligated to do, beyond handle the usual backend and break ties?
@Dragon. wrote:We could copy some of what is used or was used in the hungarian community forum for total war. There was 2 admins, under them was 1 or 2 so called "main coordinators", under them were 2 elected coordinators for hotseating every 3 month.
We could use it that there are average staff members and that they elect their 1 or 2 leader, above them could be the main admins or someone who is between them with a role.
In the case that under the main admins there is only the staff leaders, they should relatively have a free hand and the admins should be involved when it is necessary or asked.
Well, I think we should first decide what the highest positions actually would be. I think having adminstrators (while one, or all of them, would be directing the staff) for different matters would be  enough.

I think it would be good to let community have some voice in that, although completely direct democracy has never been exactly the best.  Maybe it could be done that way, game admins/staff would make nominations, but then in the actual elections all members (with some activity requirements too I suppose) could vote? (talking about electing administrators, and similar positions). A Requirement for staff admnistrator would of course be that he already is a staff (and nominated by staffers), and moderation administrator could be also an admin I suppose (and nominated by both, admins an staffers, as all staffers are admins in the same time)...

@Dragon. wrote:In the forum it was a democratical vote, where one of the main admin posted the time for the election and listing who can be and can't be voted. For instance the previous staff leaders can't be voted again, if their term just ended, so one person can't be always a leader.
And the voting is made in private so no one apart from the admin who received the vote and the voter knows for whom they voted.

Sounds like best

_________________
avatar
Join date : 2018-01-11
Reputation : 4
Posts : 35
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:59 pm
@Jadli wrote:
Well, thats true, we could make permission (or "groups") per person, as it seems there more than enough of them

You don't even need that much. Case in point: Mergor (unless someone changed his permissions/the group permissions along the way).

@Jadli wrote:
I dont think we need to dig much into how the hotseats are run, only into how the community is run. Hotseats are run by hotseats admin(s), and each admin has full authority in his hotseats, (or the hotseat host/creator in case its not he same person, some expected agreement between them is expected...). Hotseat Staff cant have have much say on how the hotseats are runned, nor should have any, unless there is extreme stuff. If players dont indentify themselves with the way the admin/creator/host runs his hotsets they probably shouldnt join them. It is up to everyone which hotseats he joins, and there is more than enough options.

Admins are of course free to offer any kinds of rewards of their own, but site rewards can be naturally offered only by Hotseat Staff hotseats.


As for the relationship between staffers and members, yes, they should have no privilege above other members, and I see no reason to not let them join/host hotseats (host only unofficial of course, for official there must be some communication with other staffers). As I mentionned above about admins, in relation between admin - players, a staffer is equal to any other player in that HS (unless he is an admin naturally). As well in other casual situations is staff equal to other members, unles its some staff/organization matter (that was its supposed to work on TWC, but oh well). When there are some moderation issues etc, the staff/moderators should try to sort it out by talking to the member first, to avoid some public drama (via what Dragon said about Soul above).
Sounds completely fair.

@Jadli wrote:
I would also ask you both to distinguish site administration, hotseat staff and game admins, seems you are using one same word for all three... Crying or Very sad
I hope that wasn't the impression. I consider them all distinctly different categories >.<

@Jadli wrote:
Well, I think we should first decide what the highest positions actually would be. I think having adminstrators (while one, or all of them, would be directing the staff) for different matters would be enough.
Sounds good, though, the question becomes what the roles of the administrators would be at that point. What exactly they would expand upon. I'd like competence and qualification to be a part of the process, as there can be a distinct difference between who people believe to be the best person (aka: the nicest guy) and the person who actually knows how to use the fancy buttons.
@Jadli wrote:
I think it would be good to let community have some voice in that, although completely direct democracy has never been exactly the best. Maybe it could be done that way, game admins/staff would make nominations, but then in the actual elections all members (with some activity requirements too I suppose) could vote? (talking about electing administrators, and similar positions).
Game Admins and Hotseat Staff making nominations sounds moderately fair, though really, anyone could be a game admin on day one if they want to and have a tiny bit of luck/ability on their sides :p

The question then becomes how people vote. A poll only visible to certain members? Only people who are of a certain caste (TWC's citizens or even this site's game admins)? Every single member regardless of ability? It would be difficult to hit a fair middle ground between these groups, and actually enforce them (eg, 200 days + x posts to vote for admin). There would be quite a bit of backend necessary to process the voters for enforcing this, and then, where do you set the line for the minimum people allowed to vote? A citizen system seems OK in theory, but also sounds like it could quickly become an elitist clique while the rest of the members may not necessarily care. Likewise, you have risks, some similar, some different, when you have an open poll for top positions. Especially a role such as Admin, where one wrong choice can wreck the site for good. Even one wrong choice for Hotseat Staff could be a wrecking ball given their permissions over the forum sections (and presumably the ability to make/move/remove them).

I'd like to see more input in this discussion from people who aren't currently packing red text. >.>

@Jadli wrote:
A Requirement for staff admnistrator would of course be that he already is a staff (and nominated by staffers), and moderation administrator could be also an admin I suppose (and nominated by both, admins an staffers, as all staffers are admins in the same time)...
'Head Staffer'/staff manager is most certainly a red text title ;p My question there turns to what exactly they would be able to do.

So, I'm left with two questions - how are Hotseat Staff/Admins promoted, and What power does the staff manager have in this process.

Hotseat Staff in my preliminary thinking could be nominated by members and then voted on by other Hotseat Staff (with my preliminary thinking that Hotseat Staff to start with would consist of currently trusted community members). Or, the other way around - when Hotseat Staff decide it is time to get another member onto their team due to workload or whatnot, they draft some names, and then ask the community who they want to see (or, at any point in this suggestion, specify Game Admins instead). Or, finally, have members nominate and vote for their choice of a Hotseat Staff member, which I would be most skeptical about, but open to if the metrics of "who can vote, and how" are settled.

Administrators would have something similar to above, probably nominations and then a vote, either determined by hotseat staff and admins, just hotseat staff, or conceivably the community at large at the actual voting stage. I think I'd like to see more people chip in as to how they would reasonably want this process to go.

And then, finally, staffers. I think that should be approached after staff recruitment is determined in the first place, and the `staff admnistrator` should instead be the admin team as a whole. Three minds that must come to a decision instead of one person holding special keys.
avatar
1 Staff Hotseat Victory
1 Staff Hotseat Victory
Join date : 2018-01-11
Reputation : 13
Posts : 105
Location : Romania
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:37 pm
I believe that Administrators should remain permanent and in case one goes MIA elections should be held among the Hotseat Staff to determine which one will take the place. However one thing we should note is that Administrators are allowed to intervene in hotseats only for disciplinary cases such as an admin/creator taking advantage of his position to gain advantages and so on. The Hotseat Staff will have a say in this as well. If that player is part of Hotseat Staff then he will be removed at once from his position as Hotseat Staff.

The entire hierarchy system should work more as a republic rather than monarchy. Thus both Administrators and Hotseat Staff will have to gather and vote for every decision. It's better than having leaders among them and trust them to do all the work (as we've recently seen that it's not good).

And also I'd vote for annual elections for Hotseat Staff among the current players and let them to decide.

_________________
avatar
Join date : 2018-01-11
Reputation : 4
Posts : 35
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Thu Feb 01, 2018 2:18 pm
Permanent administrators may simplify things, though I wouldn't mind seeing a mechanic in for Hotseat Staff to oust/replace an admin (or 2 admins wanting to replace the one) in consideration for future events to avoid the position remaining static. And naturally, Administrators should not have free reign to interfere with whatever they like.

Staff coming together to vote for any major decision would be good, and for the sake of transparency, possibly in an open thread where the common user can at least make input for others to know what the stance is of some community members.

As for annual elections, the question remains 'how', how to host it, how one determines current players if that is a separate distinction from everyone, and how to minimize potential abuse if it is everyone that is involved. Elections can work, but I have seen them fail on websites more often than not, so if it is implemented, I'd want to see a clear plan for how to do that.
avatar
Join date : 2018-01-16
Reputation : 1
Posts : 43
Location : Hungary
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:19 pm
The elections can be handled and restriced, that whoever gets voted gets his term for a certain time. After that ends and there is a new vote, the previous contender can't be reelected to avoid popular contests or abuse.
For forum administrators it can be 2-3 in number and a voting system could be created for it aswell. One would remain as administrator all the time, which would be Jadli, as he is the creator of the forum and I don't think he can step down. Another forum administrator could come from the hotseat staff, who elects their leader, who will be a forum administrator at the same time for his elected time.
The last forum administrator could be voted out of the community to represent them, from those who are not hotseat staff member.

The other version would be that there are 2 forum administrator, one is jadli for the same reason and the other is the one elected from hotseat staff. The who is elected could be a forum administrator and the hotseat staff leader, unless we want to separate them in this case.

Of course this is all just brainstorming right now, meaning could be somewhat bad ideas.

_________________
"Ah, the blood of Ouroboros protects you from defeat!
You leave me no other option, than to stage an ignominious retreat!
To me, infernal ghouls, and see to the serpent's death
While I take the time to catch my breath!"
avatar
Join date : 2018-01-11
Reputation : 4
Posts : 35
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Tue Feb 13, 2018 6:28 pm
I should note that I am no longer interested in matters of site administration; I do not wish to retain the Red Text, and I'm afraid my own participation in this thread will drop to nothing on the matters discussed here. I would post what I have behind the scenes for continuity, but really, there wasn't much I had prebuilt, and what exists is merely a confused jumble of my own thoughts that are pretty much already reflected in this thread. So, good luck gents.
avatar
Site Owner
Join date : 2018-01-11
Reputation : 7
Posts : 149
Location : Brno, Czech Republic
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:31 am
Well, after thinking more I think we should make it simple, rather then complex. At leats until the forum hypothetically expands to other branches than just hotseating.

As Im the forum host, it seems I cannot take administrator position from myself. Thus Ill  remain in charge of updating the site, but that shouldnt give me any privilege towards hotseat staff (unless I have some position in The Staff naturally).

There should probably be only one Leader/face of the community (I suppose he would be called "Hotseat Staff Overseer") in the same time, elected for a certain period, who would likely appoint his deputy (or it would be one who ended as second in the election). The  Overseer (and a deputy) would receive "Administor" role, their specific position would be labelled by special rank displayed under their name. The Deputy would probably be only doing Overseer's work in case he is absent. Otherwise he should probably have no other function....  The Overseer's job would be making official Staff annoucements, slightly directing Staff in their acivities (although The Staff would be democratically. Tho maybe he would maybe have two votes?), head of moderation, etc. I think one period would be 4 (or 6?) months, and the nominees could be only members of Hotseat Staff, who announce their candidature (voted by the entire community)? And As Dragon. suggested, it shouldnt be possible to become The Overseer two times in row...

Being a hotseat staff shuoldnt be a honourary or a popularity position, thus I dont think people should be elected into this position purely based on community opinion. There should be only members interested on actively working for the community, assuming they have such abilities and a time to do so.  (some specific criteria on the activity/etc can be created later, as well as maybe further division of the Staff into the sections etc). The initial Staffers should be made those were part of Gaming Staff prior to the recent events (including me I guess). We could either start an election for an Overseer, or for the first period (or only until things get going) keep Dragon. a head, as he was Main Section Leader

I think the community should have more of a control role towards the Staff, instead of directly tasking them. For example, they should be able to start a poll against any Staff decision, or for example demand a resignation of any staffer. If the poll ends with a majority, the Staff would have to obey it. Making polls about every Staff decision would be just waste of time, so this way it seems better to me, as the community would be have the option to to change things, if The Staff went against the community's will. Mabe only a member of "Game Admin" role could be allowed to start such polls, but its not a big difference I think.

To become a Hotseat Staff, a member would have to apply. Although, Im not certain whether only The Staff, or also the community should be voting on this too. Either The Staff would be voting on the application themselves, but if the applicant was allowed into The Staff, then the community would be allowed to oppose the decision (as every other decision), and if it ended with a majority, the applicant wouldnt be allowed into The Staff. Or alternatively, the Staff (or the overseer only), would only decide whether the applicant is suitable for the role, and if he was, then the entire community would be voting on whether he is accepted or not.

Thoughts?

_________________
avatar
Join date : 2018-01-16
Reputation : 1
Posts : 43
Location : Hungary
View user profile

Re: TWHS Administration

on Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:12 pm
I think having an "Overseer" is enough. No need for a deputy. The Overseer will share the same right as the site main administrator (jadli).
The Overseer would as you said should direct staff activities, moderation etc. The election idea seems good for me, that he comes from staff for a certain time period and can't have a second turn.
Hotseat staff can remain as GS were in TWC, as that dedicated members filling some criteria can join it to work for improving the community in ways they can.
I believe the people can have the right to oppose a decision from staff, however only in my opinion if atleast one staff member is opposing said idea aswell. I don't think we are a bad community and everyone wants to cause drama and do cutthroat plays, but in the worst cases the average people of the community shouldn't have all mighty right to have a sort of "veto" againts everything staff or overseer/admin does.

_________________
"Ah, the blood of Ouroboros protects you from defeat!
You leave me no other option, than to stage an ignominious retreat!
To me, infernal ghouls, and see to the serpent's death
While I take the time to catch my breath!"
Sponsored content

Re: TWHS Administration

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum