| Poll: In what ways should an admin be recalled? (select *any* of the following - you may choose more than one) You do not have permission to vote in this poll. |
|||
| Admin vote. | 15 | 53.57% | |
| Assembly recall vote. | 1 | 3.57% | |
| Assembly recall vote - but only after a factfinding report is published. | 4 | 14.29% | |
| Judicial tribunal. | 4 | 14.29% | |
| Independent tribunal. | 4 | 14.29% | |
| An admin should not be removed ever. | 0 | 0% | |
| Total | 28 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
| Adminstration |
|
As I said on the other forums, moving to the new forums before discussing the new expectations and rules and policies for our new administration would lead to problems because once we all got cosy and settled here we would replace the need for an overarching policy with hope and faith in the reputation, popularity and character of our admins (like we did with Hileville).
I'd really like to see us not just put off that discussion for another century. There's some major problems not addressed: - Moderation exists outside of our constitution and is not curtailed by our constitution or our individual political rights. That serves as a HUGE opportunity for politicians to remove players they don't like. - There seems to be no consistent administrative policy. - The process to becoming an admin is social and political (which threatens the technical and meritocracy of adminship). - The process of being removed as admin is social and political (which threatens the technical and meritocracy of adminship). - Discussion is curtailed instead of encouraged. - Moderation and the Rule of Policy is applied unevenly: punishments are heavier against dissenters than loyalists. This is probably a result of the first point. - Moderation instead of having an arsenal of options available (i.e., banning players from certain forums or for short periods of time) seems to only have one punishment: ban the person for a year and lock the thread before anyone might read what important thing they said. - Administration can read and observe the private forums of our government, giving them a distinct political advantage. A.K.A "Big Brother is Watching You". Among a boatload of other problems that I haven't already covered.
While I agree with Unibot that there should be more streamlined enforcement of the Moderation Policy and the possible drafting of a Charter of Governance to ensure that there is a code of conduct that members of the administrative team go by, both on internal governance and moderation of the forums as a whole, I strongly disagree that Moderation has had a political agenda or bias in enforcing rules.
The reasons behind why Hileville removed several members of the administrative team is debatable, with each to his own. We've already had a lengthy discussion on this on the old forums, and as many have stated, it's time to move on. Hileville is no longer root administrator, let alone in the administrative team, so I suggest that we ought to let the matter rest. Simply put, you may have felt that Hileville had had a political agenda in banning you from the old forums, but you can't just apply it as a blanket reason that 'all bans are a result of political agenda' or that 'all members of the administrative team have a political agenda in enforcing their rules', Unibot. It's like saying that all Muslims are terrorists because Al-Qaeda is an Islamist group, which is a blanket statement that is absolutely untrue. In formal terms used by in-game moderation on the NationStates site, 'assuming that "all X are Y"'. With regards to discussion being curtailed, discussions in threads do get heated, and sometimes warnings are not heeded, and as such threads locked. In limited circumstances are players banned as a result of the locking of threads, except for repetitive disruptive behaviour that is has a largely detrimental effect or a negative influence on the South Pacific community. With regards to your last point, having been in Cabinet before myself, Delegates can request that members of the administrative team not participate in discussions of the government, so it will not be giving 'a distinct political advantage' as mentioned
I'm not saying that every admin is X, I'm saying how our current system is played out, X have a very good reason to want to be admins and X have been admins. We could change how moderation works to eliminate this issue.
By X I assume you mean established, long term citizens with a history of government service? Because that has always been the criteria for the admin team.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Administration policy is certainly a discussion we should have. I implore everybody to allow people to express their opinions, especially critical ones. This is an area where all ideas will be considered. The debate is strengthened by varied positions and opinions, and it's understandable for people to feel very strongly about their positions.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Personally, I don't think administration and moderation should be a legislative issue. We expect the admin team to be apolitical and we do that by...Politicizin' the issue? I agree that there should be a consistent admin policy so ya don't have politicians removin' players they don't like, but I don't think there's much the Assembly can or should do when it comes to curtailin' the power of the admins and mods. We just havta have admins and mods that apply their policies consistently.
You mean, "let's just hope they implement good policies" - you realize this is what we did with Hileville, yes?
Yes, but, at the end of the day, that's all we really can do.
Unless what members of the assembly are getting at is that they want a say in determining the policies used.
Sent from my LG-P769 using Tapatalk
We could write the policies they use ourselves, but it's entirely up to the admins and mods whether to adhere to that policy.
|
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Former Offices
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |