PDA

View Full Version : Supports and Admin Apps



Hazardous
14 Jul 2009, 12:52am
STOP LETTIN' THEM NEWBIE SUPPORTERS VOTE IN THIS HERE ADMIN APPLICATIONS YOU HEARS?


Seriously though, consider and discuss.

Italian Jew
14 Jul 2009, 01:03am
STOP LETTIN' THEM NEWBIE SUPPORTERS VOTE IN THIS HERE ADMIN APPLICATIONS YOU HEARS?


Seriously though, consider and discuss.

It has already been discussed. We know the outcome.

Killer
14 Jul 2009, 01:26am
Could you give us a rashional reason?

Lefty
14 Jul 2009, 01:35am
Could you give us a rashional reason?

New people come and say "Support your really responsible" and they haven't met the person really good and just gave him/her a free vote

Killer
14 Jul 2009, 01:38am
Yes, I understand that there are some cases like that. But they are some votes from supporters that support whoevers admin app because they do know that they are responsible and would make a great admin.

Crimson
14 Jul 2009, 02:53am
New people come and say "Support your really responsible" and they haven't met the person really good and just gave him/her a free vote


This isn't the main issue. The main issue, is supporters new and old alike, are supporting eachother for Support on their admin app.


Pretty much, I'll vote for you, if you vote for me. If it was up to me, I would remove Supporter voting powers, and just allow Server Administrator and above Vote. But as stated, it won't happen.

Huwajux
14 Jul 2009, 04:03am
This is an problematic issue and really should be taken into consideration; whether it will or not remains to be unseen.

Jaffa
14 Jul 2009, 04:43am
This isn't the main issue. The main issue, is supporters new and old alike, are supporting eachother for Support on their admin app.


Pretty much, I'll vote for you, if you vote for me. If it was up to me, I would remove Supporter voting powers, and just allow Server Administrator and above Vote. But as stated, it won't happen.

I think your generalising here about supporters

Suri
14 Jul 2009, 06:23am
STOP LETTIN' THEM NEWBIE SUPPORTERS VOTE IN THIS HERE ADMIN APPLICATIONS YOU HEARS?


Seriously though, consider and discuss.

:boxing:

Dante
14 Jul 2009, 06:38am
This isn't the main issue. The main issue, is supporters new and old alike, are supporting eachother for Support on their admin app.


Pretty much, I'll vote for you, if you vote for me. If it was up to me, I would remove Supporter voting powers, and just allow Server Administrator and above Vote. But as stated, it won't happen.

Here's an Idea, don't shoot it down, But what if there was like a probation period for those that just became a supporter, for like the first week or two that they weren't allowed to vote on Admin apps. Could it be done? If so I would highly suggest this.

SilentGuns
14 Jul 2009, 08:09am
This is why we are getting way to many admins , most of the time im like ''who the fuck are you'' when I see a admin.



Must be a community member for at least 6 months and sup or higher to vote , thats what I say.

Jaffa
14 Jul 2009, 08:43am
If you've been here for 6 months, chances are you won't know the new appliers very well (i know that sounds silly, but its true), and you'll be biased against them for being new

Runski
14 Jul 2009, 09:10am
Me, Im a supporter that states my votes depending on the person that is applying. But if we got rid of the supporter votes, then the admins and above would be the only ones who could state their opinion. Power to the People! This community is slowly becoming an Admin Community and not the Player Community it wanted to be.

GrayFox
14 Jul 2009, 09:14am
If you've been here for 6 months, chances are you won't know the new appliers very well (i know that sounds silly, but its true), and you'll be biased against them for being new

I'd rather be biased against them being new than accepting everyone (not saying that everyone is accepted.) I see new admins on the servers every day and I have no idea who they are, yet so far I haven't seen an admin actually do anything bad. For the most part they seem to be on their game.

Dante
14 Jul 2009, 10:33am
Same with me Grayfox, i've seen admins that are new, or people trying to go for admin who i've never heard of, or admins, that i've never heard of, that have been here for awhile and i just see them, It happens, And if noone is willing to do anything about it, your just gettin fucked over, or at least it seems. But then again, some of the new admins are some of the better ones we have.

Awacs
14 Jul 2009, 11:37am
Let us vote and voice our opinions but don't let our votes affect the applicants vote total.

(Kinda fail I know, but let our names appear on the yes/no side but our votes don't carry any weight on the approval/reapply of the app)

Or, Just don't let us vote at all... Its not like its a big thing of buying supporter or anything.

Italian Jew
14 Jul 2009, 12:05pm
Me, Im a supporter that states my votes depending on the person that is applying. But if we got rid of the supporter votes, then the admins and above would be the only ones who could state their opinion. Power to the People! This community is slowly becoming an Admin Community and not the Player Community it wanted to be.

You wanting to keep Supporter voting and saying power to the people is utter crap. More like power to the people who pony up about $5-$10 a month. Paying to vote on the internet over something trivial when even your opinion and voice doesn't really matter...sounds stupid. Enjoy your skins, blue name, and server reservation.

Spliff
14 Jul 2009, 02:55pm
I am kinda new to the community and just got Supporter status but I do think it makes sense if you have to be in 6 months + and at least an Honorable status or higher to vote. But for admin I think you have to be mature and prove you have the ability to have admin privileges.

Italian Jew
14 Jul 2009, 03:07pm
But for admin I think you have to be mature and prove you have the ability to have admin privileges.

Those are the guidelines in use, but sadly, people can BS those qualities.

TheTruth
14 Jul 2009, 03:10pm
Imo I think Honorables should be able to vote. They've been with the community long enough to know the rules and what makes a good admin.

Dracula
14 Jul 2009, 03:53pm
Those are the guidelines in use, but sadly, people can BS those qualities.

Bullshit yall know im a nice guy I help regs and all the new people. :lol:

Metal
14 Jul 2009, 04:10pm
Well supports support the mother fucking community, plus i think supports and admins have the right to support or no support for admins.
but think of this, when you become admin your new it doesn't matter if you been in the community for months you will still be new too admin, so help them out.

Dante
14 Jul 2009, 04:29pm
I think it should be like what i first said, Supporters who just got their status shouldn't be able to vote for at least two weeks, so they get to know the community, and make it to where they can get admin after 3 weeks. It makes them go out there and be known. Half of these Supporters just sit on forums for 2 weeks, spamming shit. And then ask for admin, They never play the fucking servers, And They don't deserve to become admin. They need to prove themselves to any admin they see. If I don't know you, or don't think your good enough i won't vote for you. You can yell at me all you fucking want but hell, meet the ppl that decide if you become admin or not.

Runski
14 Jul 2009, 05:00pm
You wanting to keep Supporter voting and saying power to the people is utter crap. More like power to the people who pony up about $5-$10 a month. Paying to vote on the internet over something trivial when even your opinion and voice doesn't really matter...sounds stupid. Enjoy your skins, blue name, and server reservation.

You left out being able to be admin :3, and the user title.

Italian Jew
14 Jul 2009, 05:50pm
You left out being able to be admin :3, and the user title.

Some people don't have to be Supporter for admin though, just the new people.

Dante
14 Jul 2009, 05:53pm
Some people don't have to be Supporter for admin though, just the new people.

Those people are former admins that is why.

Italian Jew
14 Jul 2009, 05:56pm
Those people are former admins that is why.

For the most part.

2 Dwarves, 1 Coat
14 Jul 2009, 06:02pm
I think it should be like what i first said, Supporters who just got their status shouldn't be able to vote for at least two weeks, so they get to know the community, and make it to where they can get admin after 3 weeks. It makes them go out there and be known. Half of these Supporters just sit on forums for 2 weeks, spamming shit. And then ask for admin, They never play the fucking servers, And They don't deserve to become admin. They need to prove themselves to any admin they see. If I don't know you, or don't think your good enough i won't vote for you. You can yell at me all you fucking want but hell, meet the ppl that decide if you become admin or not.

I completely agree, that's almost exactly what I would've said. It makes it seem as if the requirments for admin are:

1. Pay $10.

2. Spam forums for 2 weeks to increase postcount.

3. Tell all other supporters to vote for you and you will vote for them.

Dante
14 Jul 2009, 06:12pm
That's all i've ever seen, But then there are good supporters that just wanted to help out. I've seen a few good supporters that i've played with and enjoy playing with, And i'm pretty sure i could say vise versa with me. But They really need a probation period. So if any CA's, AO's, BD's are actually reading this, Just think about it. It could work.

PingPong
14 Jul 2009, 06:16pm
Most of the supporters i see around have maybe 5 posts in total, and i see them post on the admin apps and im thinking WTF ARE YOU DOING! Like someone has stated before there should be guidelines for supporters voting on admin apps. Certain amount of posts on the forum. Know the community. This is the average supporter (no offense) "Ok im gonna pay 10 dollars and boom ive already got more rights and can decide on people who become admin rather then people who have been here way longer then me and know those peoples chararestics." Should'nt fuckin work like that. Imo for a supporter to vote they should have the same guidelines as hon

matt 187
14 Jul 2009, 06:19pm
Could you give us a rashional reason?

you have been here since 2009 iv been here since 2007.

Shadowex3
15 Jul 2009, 05:51pm
There's a very simple reason this won't get anywhere. $. Zombie health was one thing, this... unless we all get together and start buying people's opinions I don't see this going anywhere. Money talks, always has, always will. Doesn't matter if you're here or in meatspace.

Long term members in good standing and respected by the community do not pay the majority of the bills, random people who have paypal accounts do.

Caution
15 Jul 2009, 06:27pm
Long term members in good standing and respected by the community do not pay the majority of the bills

Lol some don't pay any. It's all about who the higher ups like and don't like. I can name several people who pay $0 for being admin (not even talking about AO's), while some who have been here even longer than those said people have to pay. Some people even have special privileges in vent, and others can get around the admin rules originally stated by Haggard. IMO, anybody under AO should have to pay.

The only time $ comes into effect is if you're just an admin in the crowd.

matt 187
15 Jul 2009, 06:31pm
Lol some don't pay any. It's all about who the higher ups like and don't like. I can name several people who pay $0 for being admin (not even talking about AO's), while some who have been here even longer than those said people have to pay. Some people even have special privileges in vent, and others can get around the admin rules originally stated by Haggard. IMO, anybody under AO should have to pay.

The only time $ comes into effect is if you're just an admin in the crowd.

*cough cough i didn't pay cough cough*

Caution
15 Jul 2009, 06:33pm
*cough cough i didn't pay cough cough*

Yeah, I'm going to be gone for a little bit so there's no point. Lol I don't have the money to anyway because the referral money for quite a few of us never was handed out.

Or are you talking about the fact while you were an admin you didn't pay?

Dracula
15 Jul 2009, 06:33pm
Lol some don't pay any. It's all about who the higher ups like and don't like. I can name several people who pay $0 for being admin (not even talking about AO's), while some who have been here even longer than those said people have to pay. Some people even have special privileges in vent, and others can get around the admin rules originally stated by Haggard. IMO, anybody under AO should have to pay.

The only time $ comes into effect is if you're just an admin in the crowd.

:clap:

matt 187
15 Jul 2009, 06:35pm
Yeah, I'm going to be gone for a little bit so there's no point. Lol I don't have the money to anyway because the referral money for quite a few of us never was handed out.

Or are you talking about the fact while you were an admin you didn't pay?

little of both :amuse:

Caution
15 Jul 2009, 06:40pm
little of both :amuse:

Hehe.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I have no problem supporting the community by paying for my admin (don't have the $ at the moment), but I don't understand why other admins don't have to pay, and then some with the same status get vent powers.

matt 187
15 Jul 2009, 06:57pm
Hehe.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I have no problem supporting the community by paying for my admin (don't have the $ at the moment), but I don't understand why other admins don't have to pay, and then some with the same status get vent powers.

well i can tell you that most of the people that get free admin/more privileges been here since the beginning of ZM.

Caution
15 Jul 2009, 07:09pm
well i can tell you that most of the people that get free admin/more privileges been here since the beginning of ZM.

Ohhhhh would I beg to differ.

But this is besides the main point of the thread. I agree with what Obez said, I think votes should be taken away from supporters. Yeah, you get the occasional one who was either an ex-admin or an older reg, but the majority are just new people looking for supports back.

Awacs
15 Jul 2009, 07:44pm
Ohhhhh would I beg to differ.

But this is besides the main point of the thread. I agree with what Obez said, I think votes should be taken away from supporters. Yeah, you get the occasional one who was either an ex-admin or an older reg, but the majority are just new people looking for supports back.

/agree
/+rep

TheVirus
16 Jul 2009, 04:58am
I think supporters should be able to comment, but not vote. I don't think it wise to limit who can/can't vote based on time being here. In my eyes, newer supporters are prone to play more often because they want to meet as many people as possible and learn the style of play for each mod. At least, that's what I tried to do.

The only supporter that I see now that's doing this vote-for-vote is Donuts, whom I've never seen play in PB and it seems many of the admins don't know this person either. But that's only after looking at the past 5-10 applications.

Shadowex3
16 Jul 2009, 10:47am
Tbh given how easy it is to become admin (the new Sup2) I don't think anyone should be able to vote by default.

My ideal solution: Speaking is allowed for admins, supporters, and Regulars. Getting regular is like getting HG right now, ~5-6mo and in good standing as far as bans and stuff goes, and Regulars who are around for longer still and really respected can be upgraded periodically to HG. Then only HG and all admin ranks above SA and admins with no punished complaints in the last ~4 months can actually vote but everyone else still gets to voice an opinion. People who abuse this by just posting unsubstantiated or meaningless "He's a good guy, I support him" posts without any meat to them lose that privilege and get to start over.

Problem solved. Paying members who've proven themselves over time can vote, non-paying members who've really contributed to the community in ways other than financially can vote, and all members who contribute to the community financially or not enough to earn people's respect can at least speak so if they have a good reason for someone not to get admin it can be considered even if they don't vote.

it would also balance out the spam-induced progression from mem->reg->HG and actually make the latter two titles hold some significance. Everyone wins, everyone gets what they want, and the pool of people involved in deciding admins is still well chlorinated.

phatman76
17 Jul 2009, 02:19am
Now I have basically been giving input on this whole process for nearly two years now, and ultimately the system has one flaw.

The flaw is, we always think the system is broken.

It works okay. I wish anybody could post on an admin app, I think that is the right thing. But it seems to work anyways. I wish there was a more thorough vetting, but it seems to work anyways. The higher ups can sack the bad apples, it just works out.

At our current growth rate, we are not going to have to worry for a long time. It isn't that we aren't growing, we really are, but the system we have is very elastic. Our normal to peak server traffic ranges from 50 at a low, 150 at the mid, and two hundred something at the top. Until we get some crazy more servers open and like, 300 people on constantly, we will start seeing a large bump in adminship.

One thing is that you only see apps, despite many apps all the time our admin total growth has been pretty slow and steady. For every guy that hops on, one usually hops off. To see, check the admin app pages going back 3 years. You will see hundreds of apps, many were approved and were fine admins. But look how many are admins right now, less than a hundred, closer to 60-70 all staff included. Those numbers are pretty split between long-haulers like myself and newer people who will probably quit (voluntarily I remind you) within 3 months. That is just the way turnover goes.

I know I may be seeming tangential here, but it really matters.

So we have steady growth in the community with high turnover (to see, look at supporter turnover, which is incredibly high). We have a steady core of admins and leaders with a healthy turnover of newer people also. These things are both good. The natural side effect, however, is needing to process new people often.

Now we come to the crux of the issue. It is really a cost-benefit-risk analysis. As far as how thorough and care intensive (i.e. higherups needing to consume time and energy managing) our admin/supporter/member processing needs to be versus the benefits of a more care intensive process versus the risks of a less care intensive process. Do you see, it is like a three-way balance.

If we consider that most admins turnover, and the very low rates of admin failure (i.e. needing to ban/remove/discipline an admin), you will see that the risks are low. Most new admins will not fuck up, people don't usually pay money to voluntarily fuck shit up and get kicked out (unless they are psychopaths, but those guys happen anyways).

The benefits of a quick and easy process are self-evident. Admins and higher ups can easily approve and see what is happening, and people are encouraged to try a hand at adminship (an opportunity for growth, attachment to the community, and contribution from the new admin, also money).

Finally, the benefits of a more transparent, more involved and more intensive process. We used to have one. It wasn't fantastically better, maybe even worse. We still had newbies trying to be admins, some of them turned out great, most of them average and turn over after a few months. Letting everybody, or most people post would be more involved and intensive, and there is no proof it would help any of the perceived problems (newbie apps/bad apples). In fact, the opposite. I complained and argued about newbie apps a year and a half ago when I was a member, not an admin yet. That was the first time we restricted posts on admin apps, I could no longer post. I felt jipped, but the caliber of the average admin before and after has not really changed. Not to mention the extra man hours configuring supporter abilities, regulating higher post volumes, and keeping all that stuff updated (especially because of that high sup/reg turnover, remember?).

Ultimately, the only benefit to opening up apps would be to make people feel a better part of the community. But you know what, if you think that community means posting your comment instead of just fucking pm'ing it like a normal person, then maybe you need to think about it some more. It really isn't that big of a deal.

Shit happens, but surprisingly not any less often when you let more cooks in the kitchen.

Suffering Knave
17 Jul 2009, 09:53am
I think most of this should go by the length of time here and how much you have put into the community. I mean yeah you can't waltz in and suggest things, it just wouldn't fit. I have been here over a year and I am surprised I can not vote. =( I play on most of the servers (except 2), so I know the people, the people know me.

I think honorable gamers and long long time reg (1 year +) should be allowed to put what they think in.

The voting should be only with admins because if they are to be admins who better to know who is suited for admin that an admin! Who would have thought that lol. Admins would know if they are capable or suited for the job. If they get at least a few "no" votes (like an avg of 4), then there might be something wrong with that person. The higher ups can decide on something like that.

This is my load of information. I just want more of the "long-term community" involved.

Dracula
17 Jul 2009, 10:05am
The thing that many people are not taking into account is how easy it is to pretty up and suck up to admins, it takes nothing to do that. Where as they can be cunts to normal players we have had a good batch of admins recently that were like that.

Runski
17 Jul 2009, 11:29am
Okay, I really don't mind if you take away our voting power. I still want to run for Admin.

Toxin
17 Jul 2009, 11:39am
Agreed with Drac.
While supporters and regulars may not be trustworthy, many people be have COMPLETELY different in the pressence of an admin. So, saying we only let admins vote, that one person is mostly going to get approved while he is being a total douchebag to normal players.
And tbh, I don't even take most supporter votes serious anymore, except for a special few.

And yes, give HG voting rights.
I would rather see a 3-year-old member vote on an application than some idiots with the capability of transfering some money to our community.

Shadowex3
17 Jul 2009, 02:22pm
Agreed with Drac.
While supporters and regulars may not be trustworthy, many people be have COMPLETELY different in the pressence of an admin. So, saying we only let admins vote, that one person is mostly going to get approved while he is being a total douchebag to normal players.
And tbh, I don't even take most supporter votes serious anymore, except for a special few.

And yes, give HG voting rights.
I would rather see a 3-year-old member vote on an application than some idiots with the capability of transfering some money to our community.

This, but I wanted to see if an actual admin would say it instead of anyone else. And like I said I'm up for giving HG's votes, but only if they bump us all back down to reg and make HG mean something. Atm I got it purely by postcount.

Huwajux
17 Jul 2009, 02:46pm
This, but I wanted to see if an actual admin would say it instead of anyone else. And like I said I'm up for giving HG's votes, but only if they bump us all back down to reg and make HG mean something. Atm I got it purely by postcount.
Agreed. HG has become so diluted in meaning, and people usually treat HGs with prejudice. True, some HGs in the past have been trolling assholes, but the majority shouldn't be burdened with this.

Perhaps there should be a Honourable Gamer application process? Much like the old system was for admins, it would be open to anyone for comment and there would be no poll. This means that people would be approved based on pure judgment of character instead of numerical values.

If this were put in place, then perhaps the HG tag could slowly become less of a trolling symbol that it seems to be placed with today.

Dracula
17 Jul 2009, 03:28pm
Agreed. HG has become so diluted in meaning, and people usually treat HGs with prejudice. True, some HGs in the past have been trolling assholes, but the majority shouldn't be burdened with this.

Perhaps there should be a Honourable Gamer application process? Much like the old system was for admins, it would be open to anyone for comment and there would be no poll. This means that people would be approved based on pure judgment of character instead of numerical values.

If this were put in place, then perhaps the HG tag could slowly become less of a trolling symbol that it seems to be placed with today.

And who would oversee this process the same people that let half these idiot admins in? I find their judgement flawed and un-trustable.

Spliff
17 Jul 2009, 06:14pm
For voting I really think it should just come down to the head admins making the final decision but the consent of community members is always nice because then the head admins can really truly see if they have been true to their word.

Italian Jew
17 Jul 2009, 06:29pm
For voting I really think it should just come down to the head admins making the final decision but the consent of community members is always nice because then the head admins can really truly see if they have been true to their word.

That's how it was back in the day.

Shadowex3
17 Jul 2009, 06:33pm
That's how it still is, winning by votes doesnt necessarily mean anything.


Agreed. HG has become so diluted in meaning, and people usually treat HGs with prejudice. True, some HGs in the past have been trolling assholes, but the majority shouldn't be burdened with this.
Perhaps there should be a Honourable Gamer application process? Much like the old system was for admins, it would be open to anyone for comment and there would be no poll. This means that people would be approved based on pure judgment of character instead of numerical values.


And unlike the original SG Reg tags which were handed out like candy methinks this ought to be part numerical and part unquantifiable. Eligibility should require a minimum age and amount of forum activity, good standing regarding bans and the like (no bans for serious offenses), and be handled only by other people who've also been around balls old (Legends admins, AO/up, etc).

To me a name like "Honorable Gamer" suggests someone so respected by everyone that they're basically pre-approved if they ever apply for admin, the non-administrative/paying equivalent of an AO or Legend pretty much.

Neji
17 Jul 2009, 06:39pm
This isn't the main issue. The main issue, is supporters new and old alike, are supporting eachother for Support on their admin app.


Pretty much, I'll vote for you, if you vote for me. If it was up to me, I would remove Supporter voting powers, and just allow Server Administrator and above Vote. But as stated, it won't happen.

That's exactly what I was thinking about. And I agree with Dracula.

PingPong
18 Jul 2009, 12:41am
Agreed. HG has become so diluted in meaning, and people usually treat HGs with prejudice. True, some HGs in the past have been trolling assholes, but the majority shouldn't be burdened with this.

Perhaps there should be a Honourable Gamer application process? Much like the old system was for admins, it would be open to anyone for comment and there would be no poll. This means that people would be approved based on pure judgment of character instead of numerical values.

If this were put in place, then perhaps the HG tag could slowly become less of a trolling symbol that it seems to be placed with today.
Shadow also stated before. The EXACT same thing happened with the reg tag. Back then the reg tag was earned and not just fuckin handed out like its halloween. Now all you need is a couple of posts. Sure some admins barely gave out reg tags but you still had to prove yourself to get one. The reg tag acutally meant shit unlike now

Huwajux
18 Jul 2009, 08:03am
And who would oversee this process the same people that let half these idiot admins in? I find their judgement flawed and un-trustable.
The people that let these 'idiot admins' in were only following protocol set in place by Haggard. Applicants require 80% yes votes with a minimum of 20 people voting; granted that there is the possibility of this being overruled if need be in extreme cases. This is a perfectly acceptable process in theory, but it apparently hasn't worked in practicality.

With a purely judgmental system, this leaves it more open to the community than to the higher ups who 9 times out of 10 go with what the community thinks anyway.

Neji
18 Jul 2009, 01:48pm
My opinion about this is, that you have to be an reg to buy a supporter.(Period)

Dracula
19 Jul 2009, 09:24am
The people that let these 'idiot admins' in were only following protocol set in place by Haggard. Applicants require 80% yes votes with a minimum of 20 people voting; granted that there is the possibility of this being overruled if need be in extreme cases. This is a perfectly acceptable process in theory, but it apparently hasn't worked in practicality.

With a purely judgmental system, this leaves it more open to the community than to the higher ups who 9 times out of 10 go with what the community thinks anyway.

I didnt mean the higher ups I ment the people who do the most part of the voting.

Huwajux
19 Jul 2009, 10:28am
I didnt mean the higher ups I ment the people who do the most part of the voting.
True. People give supports out too freely. A good example would be something like:

"I've seen you around a bit and you seem a pretty cool guy. Support!"
"Since you've been around I've never had a problem with you and you haven't broken any rules. Full support!"

These kinds of reasons need to be stopped. If you purely recognise the applicant, and do not actually know them, then do not vote. Just because they haven't done anything wrong, doesn't mean you should support either, they have to show a genuine interest in the community before supports should be given out. This complacency in admin applications has become somewhat of an epidemic.

If an application has 3 people's posts on it that state good things about the person applying, then the majority of people will usually follow suit to avoid being seen as the bad guy.

Basing your support off other people's reasonings, when you yourself have not witnessed them, is another flaw. This isn't to say you do not support the applicant, you just leave it alone. Admins and supporters seem to feel obliged to give supports/no supports in every thread, and most of the time they are careless and unjustified.

Another problem that seems to crop up is activity. Do not no support someone just because you haven't seen them. This is a really poor reason and your vote should be discounted. However, if you feel that someone has not been with the community long enough, THEN it is a valid reason. Over time trust is built, and with less time, there is less trust, therefore people 'should' be less inclined to support.

Mystique
19 Jul 2009, 12:07pm
My opinion about this is, that you have to be an reg to buy a supporter.(Period)

What does this has to do with Admin apps and Supporters?

And why do they have to be a reg to buy supporter? Explain please... Cos i dont really get it.

I would like to hear your reasoning behind your statement

Shadowex3
19 Jul 2009, 02:43pm
Is there a way to make it so nobody but the really higher ups can see anyones posts in the admin app threads? Then everyone can post whatever but nobody can see what everyone else said.

Dracula
19 Jul 2009, 03:15pm
True. People give supports out too freely. A good example would be something like:

"I've seen you around a bit and you seem a pretty cool guy. Support!"
"Since you've been around I've never had a problem with you and you haven't broken any rules. Full support!"

These kinds of reasons need to be stopped. If you purely recognise the applicant, and do not actually know them, then do not vote. Just because they haven't done anything wrong, doesn't mean you should support either, they have to show a genuine interest in the community before supports should be given out. This complacency in admin applications has become somewhat of an epidemic.

If an application has 3 people's posts on it that state good things about the person applying, then the majority of people will usually follow suit to avoid being seen as the bad guy.

Basing your support off other people's reasonings, when you yourself have not witnessed them, is another flaw. This isn't to say you do not support the applicant, you just leave it alone. Admins and supporters seem to feel obliged to give supports/no supports in every thread, and most of the time they are careless and unjustified.

Another problem that seems to crop up is activity. Do not no support someone just because you haven't seen them. This is a really poor reason and your vote should be discounted. However, if you feel that someone has not been with the community long enough, THEN it is a valid reason. Over time trust is built, and with less time, there is less trust, therefore people 'should' be less inclined to support.

Very well said, if only said people would listen.

Doctordan
19 Jul 2009, 03:20pm
What does this has to do with Admin apps and Supporters?

And why do they have to be a reg to buy supporter? Explain please... Cos i dont really get it.

I would like to hear your reasoning behind your statement

If there a reg that means they have spent a little time with the communty so its not a blindd vote
the way we do it now is giving a vote to a brand new community member a large say in the community with out them knowing the members

Harpr33t
20 Jul 2009, 09:02am
This isn't the main issue. The main issue, is supporters new and old alike, are supporting eachother for Support on their admin app.


Pretty much, I'll vote for you, if you vote for me. If it was up to me, I would remove Supporter voting powers, and just allow Server Administrator and above Vote. But as stated, it won't happen.

what about ppl like me?

Bubbles
21 Jul 2009, 05:10pm
my opinion, is that the higher ups aren't really reading this thread, they're playing COH and letting us bicker.

Demented
21 Jul 2009, 05:58pm
I think Supporters shouldn't get to vote purely just [SA]'s and higher.

Spliff
21 Jul 2009, 07:21pm
I think Supporters shouldn't get to vote purely just [SA]'s and higher.

Support on that.

Itch
21 Jul 2009, 07:45pm
I'd be fine with everyone getting a vote.

What people seem to overlook is that those that can make the final decision aren't stupid or blind. They can tell when someone is new supporter or not. It's pretty easy to tell if someone isn't that active either in forums or in game and their vote will be weighed differently.

As with RL and teh internets I have those that I feel their opinion has more sway.
This isn't about picking favorites or anything of the sort.. It's simply that I know them well and they have over time and through previous behavior both in-game and on the forums EARNED my respect.

The issue that started this thread in my mind is moot. Because if you have 20 people that have few posts and purchased support vote "YES, I SUPPORT, etc." and you have 2 long time members that have EARNED the respect of the majority of the community (SORRY YOU WILL NEVER PLEASE EVERYONE) that vote "no support" Guess what.. that person will most likely not get admin.

That's right.. 2 votes in some situations can carry more sway that 20. That being said our system works rather well. I've seen a ton of clans/communities that have faltered and failed due to overly convoluted admin application systems as well as overly easy admin systems. Our current system has ways to weed out bad admins. Of course a few will slip through but as proven in the past they will be weeded out and dealt with quickly.

Also.. Money has nothing to do with it. I know of quite a few people myself included that donated on a regular basis to support the community long before the supporter packages and skins and votes were ever part of the deal. Just because someone pays doesn't even come close to meaning that they have earned credibility or respect (at least not from me)

In closing..... LONG LIVE SG! And stop stressing the little things.. if you can't vote and you question someone's ability to be a good admin etc.. PM me I'll hear you out.

Spliff
21 Jul 2009, 08:08pm
I'd be fine with everyone getting a vote.

What people seem to overlook is that those that can make the final decision aren't stupid or blind. They can tell when someone is new supporter or not. It's pretty easy to tell if someone isn't that active either in forums or in game and their vote will be weighed differently.

As with RL and teh internets I have those that I feel their opinion has more sway.
This isn't about picking favorites or anything of the sort.. It's simply that I know them well and they have over time and through previous behavior both in-game and on the forums EARNED my respect.

The issue that started this thread in my mind is moot. Because if you have 20 people that have few posts and purchased support vote "YES, I SUPPORT, etc." and you have 2 long time members that have EARNED the respect of the majority of the community (SORRY YOU WILL NEVER PLEASE EVERYONE) that vote "no support" Guess what.. that person will most likely not get admin.

That's right.. 2 votes in some situations can carry more sway that 20. That being said our system works rather well. I've seen a ton of clans/communities that have faltered and failed due to overly convoluted admin application systems as well as overly easy admin systems. Our current system has ways to weed out bad admins. Of course a few will slip through but as proven in the past they will be weeded out and dealt with quickly.

Also.. Money has nothing to do with it. I know of quite a few people myself included that donated on a regular basis to support the community long before the supporter packages and skins and votes were ever part of the deal. Just because someone pays doesn't even come close to meaning that they have earned credibility or respect (at least not from me)

In closing..... LONG LIVE SG! And stop stressing the little things.. if you can't vote and you question someone's ability to be a good admin etc.. PM me I'll hear you out.

Lets leave this post at that.

Bullet Wound
28 Jul 2009, 08:16pm
Allows Admins and the Purple Trolls to vote.

Reasoning: Admins are admins....so kinda straight forward there

Purples are those who have been here a while, and play on the servers often.

Do this and you're bound to get more accurate/fair judges.

Dracula
28 Jul 2009, 08:17pm
?