PDA

View Full Version : Supporter before admin



broncoty
7 Aug 2008, 06:07pm
Should players who wish to become admins, first have to be a supporter? maybe for x amount of months or something along those lines?

Astrum
7 Aug 2008, 06:22pm
That's an interesting proposition. Off the top of my head here are a few pros/cons I can think of,

Pros:

Easy to weed out people who just want power
Would stop people from applying for admin on their first post
Might be easier to keep track of support for supporters when they apply for admin, rather than gathering support for random pubers who apply

Cons:

Talented people who could make a big difference would have to go through this process
More bureaucracy


Seems the pros are outnumbering the cons at the moment. But don't worry, I like playing devil's advocate! =)

KingTim
7 Aug 2008, 07:02pm
I like the idea.

Kennith
7 Aug 2008, 08:12pm
Should players who wish to become admins, first have to be a supporter? maybe for x amount of months or something along those lines?

I remember recommending that a while back, like requirements is 2 months as supporter. Forgot why it got turned down. Awesome idea IMO

Jaffa
7 Aug 2008, 08:22pm
its like applying for a job...

XeNo
7 Aug 2008, 10:00pm
Should we wait around for the whole:

'I have been supporter for two months now give me my admin' and the

'I've been supporter for two months and got turned down for admin, I wasted my money' and 'I've been supporter for two months and got turned down for admin, I want a refund'

complaints?


Requiring them to be Supporter for 2 months and then either declining them, or telling them to reapply for another 2 months would anger players that they were paying for something expecting to have a good shot at admin.

And then if we have a kennyG experience, they have to reapply more than once and spend months of paying for supporter then maybe never even get admin?

It would be quite the annoyance if I was a supporter trying for admin and had to pay for 6 months in hopes of admin, just to never recieve it.


While 7.50 a month to use guys and girls that are old enough to have a job and work ect ect, it can be hard for those younger players to get ahold of. And don't say the age requirement, cause we've ran into a few mature admin-worthy younger players.

Sandstorm
7 Aug 2008, 10:35pm
also, idk if i can comment, seeing as this is my 3rd(?) post, but think about if someone had been playing for months, just not as a supporter. Then, decided they wanted to apply, just to find out they have to wait ANOTHER 2 months on top of that. 2 seems too long. As long as people support them that should be fine. And, people have no problem reporting admins for stuff, lol. That weeds out the bad admins real fast.

Lux
8 Aug 2008, 03:31pm
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

You don't have to be a supporter to get known in the community, the only thing I see about this is that you want to make money but......if they could of been admin when they are supporters instead you actually lose some money because its cheaper......


It just doesn't stack up for me, I was considering applying in the future but I'd rather not wait 2 months after becoming a supporter....

*Queen VenomousFate*
9 Aug 2008, 12:02am
I think this idea sounds good to me.

vanishh
9 Aug 2008, 12:11am
i don't think we should go with that plan i mean it 2 different things supporters just want to help out the server almost the same as admin/Admin is the people who keep things in order for example mic spam/tk but thats my opinion on this

XeNo
9 Aug 2008, 08:59am
It would most likely just be another reason for players to complain about.

They'd be donating expecting to get admin, regardless if you tell them there's a chance they won't get admin.

People will donate for two months, try for admin, get a reapply or rejected, and then complain, then leave.


Not to mention if a person has played here for lets say, a year, been active on forums, vent, ect ect. Then he wants to donate for admin, he has to wait another 2 months, whereas another person instantly went supporter after playing in the servers for 3 days and then applies for admin 2 months later? A tad unfair.

If there's going to be a 2 month supporter rule, you should leave the possibilities of exceptions.

Veggie
9 Aug 2008, 04:13pm
Most of the people applying for admin who are power hungry get weeded out in the approval process, the ones that don't eventually get reported and warned/filtered out.

Requiring new admin applications to have supporter status for a month or two really is not necessary at this point. If at some point in the future numerous admins abusing their powers then this could be put in place as a deterrent.

XeNo
10 Aug 2008, 10:45am
I just don't think it's needed since you guys have a good chain of command going here, and any problems that might arise with new admins can be solved pretty fast.

There's already an approval process, which generally weeds out enough people that it's rare to see a bad admin pop up that just completely abuses. And if they do, the higher ups can remove the ban, remove the admin, and whatever else may be neccessary so that everyone can keep on playing.


The only good thing coming from having to be supporter for 2 months that I can see currently, is that it would lower the amount of 're-apply' tags on admin applications, since most are for people that make admin applications on their first post/don't know anyone. And not much else considering they could just suck-up nicely for 2 months then turn into idiots after they get Admin regardless of a 2 month supporter waiting or not.

Aaron117
10 Aug 2008, 11:10am
I like the whole idea.
I'm a level 2 supporter, and if/when I'm going to try and reapply for admin, and probably get declined again, I'm still going to pay for my level 2 supporter fees.

phatman76
10 Aug 2008, 04:24pm
this is a bad idea in my opinion. It will propagate the belief that adminship can be bought or will be sold for those with enough money and who are willing to wait. Adminship is a privilege based on the person's ability to be an admin, not only by how much they support the community. Support is good, but I know plenty of people who have supported the servers who would not have made good admins.

This also seems like adding a needless step to a process that already works fine - we get a good amount of apps and can already weed out those who we don't know well enough or who aren't qualified to be an admin. If it ain't broke don't fix it...

broncoty
11 Aug 2008, 07:09am
this is a bad idea in my opinion. It will propagate the belief that adminship can be bought or will be sold for those with enough money and who are willing to wait. Adminship is a privilege based on the person's ability to be an admin, not only by how much they support the community. Support is good, but I know plenty of people who have supported the servers who would not have made good admins.

Administrator is bought, and it is given to those who are willing to wait, how many people have come on the forums and their first post is an app for admin? Then they get a reapply they wait a month then try again? Why not make them be a supporter in that month so that.

1. They are held to a higher level in the servers because of the supporter tag.

2. They are still benefiting the community.

3. It allows admins to know who may be applying for admin, which helps identify who they should give approval or disapproval too.

It is based on their ability and it still would be. Yea some supporters would not make good admins but think about it, if someone becomes a supporter, and gets rejected for admin they are more likely to still pay for their supporter after wards which helps the community.


his also seems like adding a needless step to a process that already works fine - we get a good amount of apps and can already weed out those who we don't know well enough or who aren't qualified to be an admin. If it ain't broke don't fix it...


Sure it works fine but fine is a four letter word that starts with F, so why cant it be better? I am not saying the process is broken, merely I think this would be an improvement on an already decent system.

Lux
11 Aug 2008, 10:44am
I already posted but I will say it again.

If people apply for admin with their first forum post they obviously don't know that they have to get known. By changing the rules that you have to be a supporter first they don't magically learn this.

I don't like the tactics you are considering Broncoty. If someone becomes a supporter so that they can in the future become an admin it would be unfair to assume that after rejection they would remain a supporter. Becoming a supporter should be an option. With admin it is something where you are paying for a privilege but with supporter you pay for nothing really. You help the server and everyone wants to do that but most of the admins would not be paying if they didn't get admin powers, and that is the truth.

I like the servers and in the future I want to support them by becoming an admin but I have many other ways to spend my money, and forcing me to support before becoming an admin isn't fair. I might not even get accepted but if I didn't I wouldn't become a supporter, as bad as that sounds its honest.

I won't conclude that this is anyones actual reasoning but how many non supporters/admins would support this idea??? I would say VERY FEW. Its easy to support this idea when you have already got past this system but I don't think it is a good idea.

I don't say it just because I am not already a support/admin but it seems more like a money making idea than filtering out idea. To be an admin you need support, however long you wait and paying for supporter shouldn't really be a massive factor of a person support. If you are mature, helpful, etc you don't have to pay to be a supporter to become worthy.

MasterkennyG
11 Aug 2008, 11:48am
i think it will defeat the purpose of supporters if there all gunna get rid of it in two months and also thats alot of work for haggard .managing all those paypals

XeNo
11 Aug 2008, 09:31pm
Administrator is bought, and it is given to those who are willing to wait, how many people have come on the forums and their first post is an app for admin? Then they get a reapply they wait a month then try again? Why not make them be a supporter in that month so that.

1. They are held to a higher level in the servers because of the supporter tag.

2. They are still benefiting the community.

3. It allows admins to know who may be applying for admin, which helps identify who they should give approval or disapproval too.

It is based on their ability and it still would be. Yea some supporters would not make good admins but think about it, if someone becomes a supporter, and gets rejected for admin they are more likely to still pay for their supporter after wards which helps the community.




Sure it works fine but fine is a four letter word that starts with F, so why cant it be better? I am not saying the process is broken, merely I think this would be an improvement on an already decent system.

1. I'm a supporter and I haven't been held as a higher level.

2. Being a supporter is only in a little way supporting the community, people can not be supporter and help the community in more ways if they're active posting, giving ideas, helping players, ect. ect. without paying for a skin and reserved slot. And then there's the issue that if they have the skin on some people think they're admin or a 'higher level' as you put, and if they fuck up or argue/insult/ect ect the community looks bad as well.

3. You can be supporter without trying to get admin, therefore this number isn't really that big of a point, while I understand what you're trying to state.


And most people if they were paying for something, just trying to get to admin, would not continue to keep paying when they're denied for admin. They would most likely feel more angry for having to pay for two months, wait for two months, and complain when they 'don't get anything for it'.

You're expecting the people trying for admin will be patient and care for the community, this is not true as some may come off as 'just wanting to help out' when they just want to have admin powers and respect.

broncoty
11 Aug 2008, 10:16pm
Those are all valid arguments which is why I posted this, I wanted to see what the reaction would be.

So luxorz and xeno since you guys are the biggest proponents with the best arguments, what are your ideas instead?

Do you guys see a way to modify my idea here in order to make it a good improvement to the process, maybe just a tag to identify admin applicants?

or maybe some other idea in order to help make the process, faster and of a better quality?

XeNo
12 Aug 2008, 03:11am
While I find most things fine with the current system of admin applications.

A tag at first seems fine, but I wouldn't want anyone to start paying close attention to the people wearing the tag and then being a critic on every single move they make wrong. Though, it's still not that bad of an idea.

Another is perhaps maybe if they feel someone is not quite entirely worthy of all the admin commands that come with admin, they could perhaps have a lower admin or probationary admin level, where they simply get kick/slay/ban for 5mins.

It lowers their abilities so they can't abuse so much, and are all things that are not that much damaging player-side. What I mean is that an admin that abuses a 5min ban isn't as bad as one that say, abuses a perm or week long ban.

While some might say that the lower level of admin is crap and can't help the servers, it's more than they could do before, and it's all they really need to get players to listen to them or to get rid of a few team-killers.

And after maybe a month or so with those commands they get by without any serious complaints, you could upgrade them to the higher admin where they can ban for longer, have more abilities, and so on.


I might also suggest that admins that have full abilities should be able to kick/ban the lower level admins in case they catch them abusing their powers, until a higher up can review a demo of the abuse and decide a verdict.

I wouldn't take what I say set in stone though, as a suggestion, it's open to alternatives as well.

Lux
12 Aug 2008, 07:30am
I think when it comes to people who should reapply 1 or 2 months later some sort of tag to indentify them could possibly be a good idea.

As Xeno said no one is perfect so if admins look at them waiting for a mistake its bad. Also if you want admin you need to make an effort and get to know people, by having a tag it may help because sometimes its hard to get into the circle of friends of SG, but if you have a mic its alot easier.

So to some it up...

-A tag may help people who are trying for admin get support by becoming known in the community.
-A tag might put unfair attention on someone. They want to get known and the whole point of reapplying is to see how mature...friendly etc you are, but it could have downsides.

GrayFox
12 Aug 2008, 09:29am
I dunno if this is the same as you two said up there ^^^^^ but when applying, say they have to wear a certain tag while in game, such as <SG.Interestee>. It'd only be on till they got admin or were rejected.

XeNo
12 Aug 2008, 10:26am
I dunno if this is the same as you two said up there ^^^^^ but when applying, say they have to wear a certain tag while in game, such as <SG.Interestee>. It'd only be on till they got admin or were rejected.

The argument we made about that was that, then the admins/regs/other players could be tempted to kind of target that person, watching his every mistake and counting it against him when he eventually applies.

broncoty
12 Aug 2008, 02:25pm
While I find most things fine with the current system of admin applications.

A tag at first seems fine, but I wouldn't want anyone to start paying close attention to the people wearing the tag and then being a critic on every single move they make wrong. Though, it's still not that bad of an idea.

Another is perhaps maybe if they feel someone is not quite entirely worthy of all the admin commands that come with admin, they could perhaps have a lower admin or probationary admin level, where they simply get kick/slay/ban for 5mins.

It lowers their abilities so they can't abuse so much, and are all things that are not that much damaging player-side. What I mean is that an admin that abuses a 5min ban isn't as bad as one that say, abuses a perm or week long ban.

While some might say that the lower level of admin is crap and can't help the servers, it's more than they could do before, and it's all they really need to get players to listen to them or to get rid of a few team-killers.

And after maybe a month or so with those commands they get by without any serious complaints, you could upgrade them to the higher admin where they can ban for longer, have more abilities, and so on.


I might also suggest that admins that have full abilities should be able to kick/ban the lower level admins in case they catch them abusing their powers, until a higher up can review a demo of the abuse and decide a verdict.

I wouldn't take what I say set in stone though, as a suggestion, it's open to alternatives as well.

I do see the point of unfair attention some people are assholes and will instigate things with anyone for any reason just to see their hopes be dashed.

So what about requiring that a person have an SG Reg tag before applying for admin?

XeNo
12 Aug 2008, 02:30pm
I do see the point of unfair attention some people are assholes and will instigate things with anyone for any reason just to see their hopes be dashed.

So what about requiring that a person have an SG Reg tag before applying for admin?

Would require some kind of approval or noting that you are a good player to get the Reg tag, in which they can do the same by saying they support you on the admin Application.

Also, the Reg tag has seemed to lose its meaning since if you look at the banlist once a day, more and more 'regs' seem to be getting banned...Few days ago there was like 7 all in one day, varying from 5mins to 6 hours+...

While I'm not saying your ideas are dumb or just arguing everything you bring up, I'm just giving you both sides in a hopefully cooperative way, in case I'm coming off wrongly.

Itch
12 Aug 2008, 02:37pm
Quite a few CS 1.x clans I used to participate in required that you have an Admin sponsor your application. This weeded out a lot of bad applications because most admins don't want to stick their e-neck out for someone they don't know & trust.

Also I feel that having people become a supporter might be misconstrued as paying for the right to become admin at a later date. (Granted I have been a supporter since before they had the option to become one, and I am all for people supporting the servers they love and play on frequently)

As for the Reg tags.. I've run into way too many people with the Reg tag on that have acted like total asses in the servers to give that much weight in my opinion of the person as a player/potential admin.

to sum up.. I think that having an Admin sponsor apps makes more sense to me.

broncoty
12 Aug 2008, 04:19pm
Quite a few CS 1.x clans I used to participate in required that you have an Admin sponsor your application. This weeded out a lot of bad applications because most admins don't want to stick their e-neck out for someone they don't know & trust.

Also I feel that having people become a supporter might be misconstrued as paying for the right to become admin at a later date. (Granted I have been a supporter since before they had the option to become one, and I am all for people supporting the servers they love and play on frequently)

As for the Reg tags.. I've run into way too many people with the Reg tag on that have acted like total asses in the servers to give that much weight in my opinion of the person as a player/potential admin.

to sum up.. I think that having an Admin sponsor apps makes more sense to me.

What would happen if an admin sponsored someone and they turned out to be a dick and abuse and such?

Lux
12 Aug 2008, 05:08pm
To become an admin you need lots of support, and most likely before getting accepted you are going to have to be supported by a few admins anyway.

Itch
12 Aug 2008, 08:32pm
What would happen if an admin sponsored someone and they turned out to be a dick and abuse and such?

I've seen it done multiple ways.. anywhere from punishing the admin (probably not the route I would recommend) to removing his ability to sponsor or just that his opinion wouldn't count as much with the others in the community.

Some people randomly loose it and I wouldn't want the admin that sponsored to get in trouble. I just see it as putting your name next to theirs and most people wouldn't want to be associated with a bad admin or an abuser so they would be more selective in who they would be willing to support.

I for one would be very very selective in who I would be willing to stick my neck out for.

LitKey
12 Aug 2008, 09:14pm
I've seen it done multiple ways.. anywhere from punishing the admin (probably not the route I would recommend) to removing his ability to sponsor or just that his opinion wouldn't count as much with the others in the community.

Some people randomly loose it and I wouldn't want the admin that sponsored to get in trouble. I just see it as putting your name next to theirs and most people wouldn't want to be associated with a bad admin or an abuser so they would be more selective in who they would be willing to support.

I for one would be very very selective in who I would be willing to stick my neck out for.

That actually sounds like a really good idea.

XeNo
12 Aug 2008, 10:19pm
So what if an AO or BD vouches for someone for admin...And then the person ends up abusing it?

It seems too much like how we have our setup already, but strains more on punishing anyone who happens to support a person with admin. This could make people think twice before just throwing out support or vouching for someone.

It would lower the amount of admin applicants by a lot I'm sure. Which seems fine...But how would they decide if the person the Admin is sponsoring should get admin or not? If it's by people posting support...Then it could just be as messed up as we have now. Simply because other people would throw out support after 'I played with him once and he didn't do anything bad for 1 hour so I support' crap and so on.

So in the end it wouldn't be the Admins that is Sponsoring the person that is fault for him getting admin, it's the people that throw out blind support on the Admin applications.



Sorry, I went on kind of a rant towards the end, the amount of people I see in Admin Application threads saying 'I played with him once' or 'I talked to him once' or 'He seems like a good guy' annoys me since they're just going off one time experiences or very few and giving them support.

broncoty
12 Aug 2008, 11:03pm
I've seen it done multiple ways.. anywhere from punishing the admin (probably not the route I would recommend) to removing his ability to sponsor or just that his opinion wouldn't count as much with the others in the community.

Some people randomly loose it and I wouldn't want the admin that sponsored to get in trouble. I just see it as putting your name next to theirs and most people wouldn't want to be associated with a bad admin or an abuser so they would be more selective in who they would be willing to support.

I for one would be very very selective in who I would be willing to stick my neck out for.

See because people already approve admins, go back to vicious application, he lost it and lost his admin, but did any of those admins who approved him even receive one bit of criticism?

http://www.zombiemurder.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4354

P.S

This is just constructive, i am in no way saying these admins were in the wrong, I would have supported him too.

broncoty
12 Aug 2008, 11:12pm
What if an admin supports someone and they end up abusing or whatnot, that they lose ONE admin command.

Not kick/ban but something like freeze or slay

XeNo
12 Aug 2008, 11:52pm
What if an admin supports someone and they end up abusing or whatnot, that they lose ONE admin command.

Not kick/ban but something like freeze or slay

The list of admin commands available to Admins would make this seem like not much of a loss until they get down to kick/slay/ban/admin chat.

broncoty
13 Aug 2008, 12:35am
The list of admin commands available to Admins would make this seem like not much of a loss until they get down to kick/slay/ban/admin chat.

what would you suggest then?

XeNo
13 Aug 2008, 04:18am
what would you suggest then?

Instead of reg tags, each admin gets 2 or 3 people that they can sponsor as Admin. This way they choose wiser and don't just sponsor people they THINK will be good, and rather the ones they know will be good.

Also gets rid of the reg tag thing that seems to become such a big deal that people harass admins for reg tags, regs getting banned for acting out, and regs believing that they are some kind of higher power in the servers amongst the other players.

If you disagree, which I would find surprising...An example would have to be a couple days ago in DeathRun where someone kept asking the admin that was one (I think HighSky) for a reg tag and they said they had none and they were like 'can't you make an exception for me? : DDDD' and crap...So I tried to explain to him that having a reg tag doesn't mean much in the servers, they have no special privileges and that it doesn't mean their input in things mean more than him.

At which point 2 Regs in the server jabbed out at me about how their input means more than mine, that their ideas are more looked into and that they are able to get away with minor things such as disrespecting players. (They stated it in a manner so that this was basically what they were trying to say in terms that seemed nicer) I simply got fed up and left the server to play Escape.


I know this thread isn't about reg tags, but I feel it should be another issue to bring up sometime.

tank40175
13 Aug 2008, 05:54am
The tag for admin apps, i believe is really one of best ideas here. The argument that peeps will be overly critical of mistakes is somewhat valid, however you already deal with that issue when someone makes complaint about other players and ADMINS, by making it a requirement for proof to be posted. By seeing screenshots or demos current ADMINS, and higher positions can see what really happened and make the proper judgement as they do for all other complaints. I mean you have peeps that try to give ADMINS a lot of trouble this way, but you don't punish ADMINS just by what someone says without proof. So the system is already in place for the ADMIN app tag to work properly. Just my thoughts.:thumbup1:

Lux
13 Aug 2008, 09:06am
You can't tell how an admin is going to turn out.

You can't blame people for giving support to someone based on what they have seen of the person, which could be very good. They then turn out to be very different....you can't punish people for not being mind readers :001_rolleyes

XeNo
13 Aug 2008, 09:18am
You can't tell how an admin is going to turn out.

You can't blame people for giving support to someone based on what they have seen of the person, which could be very good. They then turn out to be very different....you can't punish people for not being mind readers :001_rolleyes

It would still lower the amount of admin applications significantly, and there's more than enough Admins as it is...80+ I thought? Anyways, least maybe if the admins take more time into their decisions for who they sponsor, and not just give out a name thinking 'eh if he turns out bad oh well' in their minds, then we could still get worthy admins to join, as well as kill tons of bad applicants.

Either that or work in reverse of my idea:
Every admin can sponsor someone to be admin, and if the sponsored player messes up as admin, the sponsoring admin loses a strike. 2 or 3 strikes and the admin is punished for sponsoring bad players.

While I know you say no one can't be a mind reader, least if they have 2 or 3 tries before being punished, they sure as hell will start to think more before deciding.

Lux
13 Aug 2008, 09:28am
It would still lower the amount of admin applications significantly, and there's more than enough Admins as it is...80+ I thought? Anyways, least maybe if the admins take more time into their decisions for who they sponsor, and not just give out a name thinking 'eh if he turns out bad oh well' in their minds, then we could still get worthy admins to join, as well as kill tons of bad applicants.

Either that or work in reverse of my idea:
Every admin can sponsor someone to be admin, and if the sponsored player messes up as admin, the sponsoring admin loses a strike. 2 or 3 strikes and the admin is punished for sponsoring bad players.

While I know you say no one can't be a mind reader, least if they have 2 or 3 tries before being punished, they sure as hell will start to think more before deciding.

MAYBE. But it would have to be individual strikes, not strikes that count towards your overall strikes as admin.

GrayFox
13 Aug 2008, 09:31am
Why not say you can't give regs away until you've been an admin for... a week? Maybe 2?

XeNo
13 Aug 2008, 01:33pm
No, because that would lower the significance of a strike.

The application system to me is fine as it is. You guys should count yourselves lucky that you even have it. I didn't apply. All it took was two emails and a PayPal payment.

I was offering an alternative since he said it was flawed.

These aren't things we expect to be done, but if there was need for a change these are the suggestions we'd think would be useful.

And if there was only two strikes...You get one mess up or your admin is gone on the second, how are those not significant?

It would be a separate strike system from the ban strike system.

I personally find the application way that is currently in use is perfectly fine...The reg tags are kind of an annoyance though. People will call out Admins to ban people with reg tags cause they think they didn't earn the tag, among other pointless and idiotic minor things.

SpEeD
15 Aug 2008, 06:28pm
I was offering an alternative since he said it was flawed.

These aren't things we expect to be done, but if there was need for a change these are the suggestions we'd think would be useful.

And if there was only two strikes...You get one mess up or your admin is gone on the second, how are those not significant?

It would be a separate strike system from the ban strike system.

I personally find the application way that is currently in use is perfectly fine...The reg tags are kind of an annoyance though. People will call out Admins to ban people with reg tags cause they think they didn't earn the tag, among other pointless and idiotic minor things.

XeNo didnt earn his supporter tag, AWAY WITH HIM!

:glare: