Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 22:38:32 GMT
I think people are vouching because we have been trying to achieve that ideal 'admin always online' idea for years with no success under this system. I honestly have no faith in any small change fixing the current system. I honestly just think many people (admins and ops included) are just starting to realize that big changes are needed, and that clinging on to this current system is just doing more harm than good. It's starting to feel like, imo, that every single admin and player could vouch on this (almost definitely not lol), and the owners would still find a way to refuse the suggestion. But we certainly can't achieve it by completely closing applications. I do not think a radical chance is unnecessary, but I also think it should be made to move forward, not because the current method isn't working and we haven't tried the other one yet. My suggestion doesn't remove people from becoming admin at all. I proposed that as opposed to allowing people to apply en masse whenever we want, we would handpick candidates based off of all applicable factors (skill, playrate, etc), but only when we absolutely needed a new admin. So over time, if we thinned the ranks, we would have less admins, but much higher quality admins overall. And if there ever came a point where there was admin downtime, we could work to find any player that fits the requirements best. |
|
Wild1145
Forum Admin 
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Wild1145 on Dec 9, 2017 22:41:15 GMT
So I'll chime in here, because I think this needs another approach.
When we were trying to re-launch CJFreedom, we had totally re-structured how admins work, and I think thats something that with some major re-designing here, could be done. We simply had 2 "Ranks" as such. Administrators, and Senior Administrators. Administrators would have most of what a Super and Telnet here does, and applications while open all year around, would be selected in bulk and ideally trained in bulk and such.
Senior Administrators on the other hand were only ever appointed. Records were kept of an admin, every promotion, recommendation, suspension or warning they had. And that would be reviewed in a great level of detail, with the execs and current Senior Administrators prior to being appointed.
Executives were also treated as a "Rank" much like Senior Administrators and the same system applied.
The thing to remember is we were going to unlock a lot of the permissions TF locks down, because TF has locked so much down due to resources, and we had a fully redundant server setup meaning if you manage to crash a server, we just put you on another while that server is resetting in the background.
We could have done a lot of work to re-architect TF, but it was not wanted and the developers looking to do it were either told not to bother, or to focus on other things, and we all eventually just gave up and moved on to be replaced with new developers with totally different priorities...
The suggestion here is sound, and should seriously be considered, because TF is more of an "All Admin Server" by the feel of it now with no real player base...
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Dec 9, 2017 22:54:45 GMT
But we certainly can't achieve it by completely closing applications. I do not think a radical chance is unnecessary, but I also think it should be made to move forward, not because the current method isn't working and we haven't tried the other one yet. My suggestion doesn't remove people from becoming admin at all. I proposed that as opposed to allowing people to apply en masse whenever we want, we would handpick candidates based off of all applicable factors (skill, playrate, etc), but only when we absolutely needed a new admin. So over time, if we thinned the ranks, we would have less admins, but much higher quality admins overall. And if there ever came a point where there was admin downtime, we could work to find any player that fits the requirements best. Your suggestion is to get rid of the current application model and replace it with hand-picking the admins we need, whereas my suggestion is to keep the current application model and limit applications to the admins we need. I think we should consider both options. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 22:57:31 GMT
whereas my suggestion is to keep the current application model and limit applications to the admins we need That's not much different than my request if you mean that the applications will ONLY be opened when we ABSOLUTELY need a new admin. Or do you think they should still be kept open regardless? Because that kinda makes or breaks it for me, and quite a few others as I am aware. |
|
Wild1145
Forum Admin
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Wild1145 on Dec 9, 2017 23:02:42 GMT
My suggestion doesn't remove people from becoming admin at all. I proposed that as opposed to allowing people to apply en masse whenever we want, we would handpick candidates based off of all applicable factors (skill, playrate, etc), but only when we absolutely needed a new admin. So over time, if we thinned the ranks, we would have less admins, but much higher quality admins overall. And if there ever came a point where there was admin downtime, we could work to find any player that fits the requirements best. Your suggestion is to get rid of the current application model and replace it with hand-picking the admins we need, whereas my suggestion is to keep the current application model and limit applications to the admins we need. I think we should consider both options. The bottom line here is that the application process (and to be honest a lot of the wider processes) are clearly flawed. We have more admins than members and have done for some time. The idea of having an admin on 24/7 is never going to happen in reality despite best efforts. |
|
Wild1145
Forum Admin
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Wild1145 on Dec 9, 2017 23:03:44 GMT
whereas my suggestion is to keep the current application model and limit applications to the admins we need That's not much different than my request if you mean that the applications will ONLY be opened when we ABSOLUTELY need a new admin. Or do you think they should still be kept open regardless? Because that kinda makes or breaks it for me, and quite a few others as I am aware. I dont see an issue with apps being open all year round myself, but we should only be selecting admins when we need them and are sure the candidates are 100%, not "well we just need some more admins to cover time zones" because thats the current mindset. |
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Dec 9, 2017 23:06:08 GMT
whereas my suggestion is to keep the current application model and limit applications to the admins we need That's not much different than my request if you mean that the applications will ONLY be opened when we ABSOLUTELY need a new admin. Or do you think they should still be kept open whenever? When we are not in need of new admins, we could not set requirements for the applicants, so there couldn't be any applications that meet them. The reason I haven't mentioned a complete close of applications is that we have been in need of admins for the 24/7 goal for a long time, and that would be a requirement that keeps them open for the first period. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 23:06:46 GMT
That's not much different than my request if you mean that the applications will ONLY be opened when we ABSOLUTELY need a new admin. Or do you think they should still be kept open regardless? Because that kinda makes or breaks it for me, and quite a few others as I am aware. I dont see an issue with apps being open all year round myself, but we should only be selecting admins when we need them and are sure the candidates are 100%, not "well we just need some more admins to cover time zones" because thats the current mindset. Sure, but I don't really see a point to having applications open when you don't need another admin. |
|
Wild1145
Forum Admin
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Wild1145 on Dec 9, 2017 23:07:58 GMT
That's not much different than my request if you mean that the applications will ONLY be opened when we ABSOLUTELY need a new admin. Or do you think they should still be kept open whenever? When we are not in need of new admins, we could not set requirements for the applicants, so there couldn't be any applications that meet them. The reason I haven't mentioned a complete close of applications is that we have been in need of admins for the 24/7 goal for a long time, and that would be a requirement that keeps them open for the first period. Do you not see the 24/7 goal as being simply a dream? That "Goal" has been going since I started here back in 2012, its never been achieved, and all we've done is dilute the admin pool with rubbish admins that should never have been appointed. 24/7 is unrealistic and this server has proven that. We should be going for quality over quantity. We'd have far less rogues, far less incidents and wouldn't need to fucking micro-manage the shit out of every admin we have... |
|
Connor
Veteran Member
Posts: 1,663
| Likes: 3,861
|
Post by Connor on Dec 9, 2017 23:11:38 GMT
When we are not in need of new admins, we could not set requirements for the applicants, so there couldn't be any applications that meet them. The reason I haven't mentioned a complete close of applications is that we have been in need of admins for the 24/7 goal for a long time, and that would be a requirement that keeps them open for the first period. Do you not see the 24/7 goal as being simply a dream? That "Goal" has been going since I started here back in 2012, its never been achieved, and all we've done is dilute the admin pool with rubbish admins that should never have been appointed. 24/7 is unrealistic and this server has proven that. We should be going for quality over quantity. We'd have far less rogues, far less incidents and wouldn't need to fucking micro-manage the shit out of every admin we have... This, and let's face it. Half the time, on weeknights I come on and there's one, maybe two, players. This means the populations outside America and west Europe are significantly untapped, lessening a need for admins to sit around for hours with no one to administrate. Is 24/7 really worth it? |
|
Wild1145
Forum Admin
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Wild1145 on Dec 9, 2017 23:15:37 GMT
Do you not see the 24/7 goal as being simply a dream? That "Goal" has been going since I started here back in 2012, its never been achieved, and all we've done is dilute the admin pool with rubbish admins that should never have been appointed. 24/7 is unrealistic and this server has proven that. We should be going for quality over quantity. We'd have far less rogues, far less incidents and wouldn't need to fucking micro-manage the shit out of every admin we have... This, and let's face it. Half the time, on weeknights I come on and there's one, maybe two, players. This means the populations outside America and west Europe are significantly untapped, lessening a need for admins to sit around for hours with no one to administrate. Is 24/7 really worth it? It was another point I was discussing off forum. We're going to get far more applications when far more players online, meaning those applications will cover our "Peak" times, back a couple of years ago I'd come on around college and find maybe 5-10 players online and perhaps an admin every now and again, and it wasn't an issue because we didn't need admins online, we just needed them to be semi-available via the forums or other platforms. We dont need someone sat babysitting the server 24/7. Decent monitoring should alert the owner / System admins to if there is an actual outage and thats the only real thing you need. But yeah as you say EU and US are the two really big player bases, and it'll be outside work / school hours for most people and thats the times we will really need admins online, not 24/7/365 |
|
Connor
Veteran Member
Posts: 1,663
| Likes: 3,861
|
Post by Connor on Dec 9, 2017 23:17:20 GMT
Also, to kinda shift gears, the PAS system is something else that needs reworking or removal. If we were to implement a "less is more" system with admin choosing, we'd need to SIGNIFICANTLY lower the amount of PAS's. Currently, our roster consists of roughly 85 admins who can appoint under this program. That's WAY too many. It should be at most 5 in my opinion. Not only that, but there's incentive to PAS nowadays as telnets can get more credibility to, again, climb the ranks, making it even more inflated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 23:21:38 GMT
Also, to kinda shift gears, the PAS system is something else that needs reworking or removal. If we were to implement a "less is more" system with admin choosing, we'd need to SIGNIFICANTLY lower the amount of PAS's. Currently, our roster consists of roughly 85 admins who can appoint under this program. That's WAY too many. It should be at most 5 in my opinion. Not only that, but there's incentive to PAS nowadays as telnets can get more credibility to, again, climb the ranks, making it even more inflated. Yeah, in the end I would like everything from my suggestion to go through, but this thread is just keeping to these two specific parts I guess. |
|
Wild1145
Forum Admin
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Wild1145 on Dec 9, 2017 23:21:41 GMT
Also, to kinda shift gears, the PAS system is something else that needs reworking or removal. If we were to implement a "less is more" system with admin choosing, we'd need to SIGNIFICANTLY lower the amount of PAS's. Currently, our roster consists of roughly 85 admins who can appoint under this program. That's WAY too many. It should be at most 5 in my opinion. Not only that, but there's incentive to PAS nowadays as telnets can get more credibility to, again, climb the ranks, making it even more inflated. Take it back to how it used to be. Seniors only, one time thing unless "Reset". No "Monthly" thing, its a one time deal until the decision is made to reset said count. |
|
Connor
Veteran Member
Posts: 1,663
| Likes: 3,861
|
Post by Connor on Dec 9, 2017 23:23:21 GMT
Also, to kinda shift gears, the PAS system is something else that needs reworking or removal. If we were to implement a "less is more" system with admin choosing, we'd need to SIGNIFICANTLY lower the amount of PAS's. Currently, our roster consists of roughly 85 admins who can appoint under this program. That's WAY too many. It should be at most 5 in my opinion. Not only that, but there's incentive to PAS nowadays as telnets can get more credibility to, again, climb the ranks, making it even more inflated. Take it back to how it used to be. Seniors only, one time thing unless "Reset". No "Monthly" thing, its a one time deal until the decision is made to reset said count. Absolutely, and that was at a time when the player base flourished. We'd constantly have a full 24, now we don't even get that usually during peak times. We had to up player slots just to compensate a tad too late. |
|
