Administration Effectiveness

The purpose of this poll is to get a general public opinion on how effective the administration is. In this poll, please indicate your vote on how well you think the administrators of the site do their jobs and if you think they do the best they can for the site. To simplify: How good is the administration?

Also, please do not feel intimidated by this poll. Your responses will not be taken to mean that you do not like the admins themselves. This is only to get an idea of how well they carry out administrative duties.

Additionally, if you voted that the administration is ineffective, I would be grateful if you would post indicating any specific problems you see with the administration in order to provide some ideas of how to improve the situation. If you would rather have your post remain private, you may post in Admin Contact with your concerns.

Somewhat Ineffective, because I'd like to see some more consistency in some of the decisions and policies.

Originally Posted by PurplePoot

Somewhat Ineffective, because I'd like to see some more consistency in some of the decisions and policies.

Yeah, that's the key word.

Hmm....
Do you have an example of an inconsistency?
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean, so I was hoping you could give me an example.

Somewhat ineffective. I am glad to see that you have done a great job with correcting some of the more 'mean' moderaters.

Here is a list of what I think would help:

1. Make a stable voting based election system. Mainly for moderaters and global moderaters. But for Admin election, only make this once a year. The particapants should send a request to the admins about a moderater position. But, he/she must meet the standard requirements for that area of skill. And then the chosen few will make ads and obtain votes for his/her election. And above all these people is, of course, Ralle.

2. Appoint several people willing to maintain stability within the forums not by posting or banning, but by talking to an Admin.

3. Make a court based judgment system. If someone made a bad choice, appoint several jury type of users to take a vote on what to be done.

4. You can NOT make peace with power. All that will do is cause the users to become even more distilled, and hopeless about the power abusive moderater. Take them to the 'court' system explained above.

5. Give the moderaters a set of rules to follow, and if they break one, send them to the 'court' system above.

6. Listen to the users suggestions as if they were a fellow Admin. This is vital for a lasting trust between users, and Admins. Which, will make them more willing to follow basic rules.

7. Divide the Hive into teams, maybe 2 teams. This will develope trust between team members.

8. When a person has a rep level, below -10, appoint someone to watch everything they do. (For +rep of course.)

9. Do not simply ban a person for one incident. Send them to a jail mode (spectater mode) for a period of time. Before you do this, give them over to the court system explained above.

10. Create an official pole section, that can only be used/created by Admins. Here, you will appoint Admins, moderaters, and such.

These are just a few. Thank you for reading!

So very many thing wrong with your suggestions:

Originally Posted by Mr. Bob

1. Make a stable voting based election system. Mainly for moderaters and global moderaters. But for Admin election, only make this once a year. The particapants should send a request to the admins about a moderater position. But, he/she must meet the standard requirements for that area of skill. And then the chosen few will make ads and obtain votes for his/her election. And above all these people is, of course, Ralle.

The Hive, like 99.9% of sites, is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship, with Ralle as the dictator. The site is his legal property and his word is literally law on it, and this works because if you don't like the Hive, you either try to change it by talking to Ralle or his chosen representatives, or you leave to another site / make your own site. Given the freedom of choice allowed by the internet, dictatorships tend to work better than democracies, on the internet, as you have a relatively stable system of governance, consisting of people who the owner of the site (In this case, Ralle) believes are able representatives of him.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bob

2. Appoint several people willing to maintain stability within the forums not by posting or banning, but by talking to an Admin.

You haven't really elaborated on this idea at all, but based on what you have said...
1. Admin Contact.
2. You can easily contact admins via their listed IM addresses or via PMs, emails or some other such method. Why would specifically appointed people be necessary or helpful? As far as I can see, only allowing them to act as messengers between the members and the administration would only slow and worsen communication.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bob

3. Make a court based judgment system. If someone made a bad choice, appoint several jury type of users to take a vote on what to be done.

No. Once again, I repeat: The hive is a dictatorship. 'Law', as such, is managed by Ralle's chosen representatives, and if a person believes they have been unfairly judged, all they have to do is 'appeal' to Ralle, and he will make a final judgement on it. This system is efficient and for the most part reliable. Requiring the input of multiple people before making any decisions merely bogs down the system in needless beauracracy, and most members (unfortunately) do not really know the rules well enough to judge, so it would just end up being staff members judging anyway.

Our current moderator invitation/application system is quite thorough, and was originally designed by the extremely helpful Wolverabid.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bob

4. You can NOT make peace with power. All that will do is cause the users to become even more distilled, and hopeless about the power abusive moderater. Take them to the 'court' system explained above.

...What? The phrasing of this is almost incomprehensible, and I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Also see flaws with your 'court' system, above.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bob

5. Give the moderaters a set of rules to follow, and if they break one, send them to the 'court' system above.

Moderators have rules to follow; you just don't know of them all. Perhaps they should be transparent, perhaps not, but that's not the argument you're making in any case. Also see flaws with your 'court' system, above.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bob

6. Listen to the users suggestions as if they were a fellow Admin. This is vital for a lasting trust between users, and Admins. Which, will make them more willing to follow basic rules.

The administration does listen to users' suggestions; however, users often make suggestions in an unreasonable manner, do not flesh their ideas out enough, do not explore the consequences of their ideas, or present otherwise flawed ideas. Were a moderator to do the same, their ideas would be equally ignored.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bob

7. Divide the Hive into teams, maybe 2 teams. This will develope trust between team members.

Not really sure what you're on about, but I'll assume you're talking about a 'house' type idea, as some schools have. If you are, this just seems plain unecessary. Also, how exactly would it 'develop trust between team members'? Further, that almost implies that people outside one's team would be untrusted.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bob

8. When a person has a rep level, below -10, appoint someone to watch everything they do. (For +rep of course.)

Why? People with negative rep are easily recognized in any case, and moderators already pay special attention to repeat offenders.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bob

9. Do not simply ban a person for one incident. Send them to a jail mode (spectater mode) for a period of time. Before you do this, give them over to the court system explained above.

What is a 'jail mode', exactly? Also see flaws with your 'court' system, above. Furthermore, moderators will not usually ban someone for their first one or two (minor) rule-breakages, but rather warn them instead. Forum bans are also dealt only vary rarely, with -rep and smaller infractions being the preferred method of punishment.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bob

10. Create an official pole section, that can only be used/created by Admins. Here, you will appoint Admins, moderaters, and such.

See flaws with your 'election' system, above.

Between Neutral and Somewhat Ineffective.

I do not like to see the Hive as a dictatorship, having a court would be somewhat interesting, yet it is something that will never happen. Maybe with Wolverabid here, but without him, it's impossible.
It wouldn't work anyway, people who disobey the rules cannot be brought to court like we're not in a virtual world. Their low intelligence is another factor.
And if you're saying we should put the court to work without the user able to defend himself, then that's not a court.

What fails is not exactly the administration, it is administration capable of helping Ralle in the scripting/administrating, and that's my definition of administrator, otherwise, they're as good as global moderators, the only difference is that administrators can say they are on a higher ground.

The Hive, like 99.9% of sites, is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship, with Ralle as the dictator. The site is his legal property and his word is literally law on it, and this works because if you don't like the Hive, you either try to change it by talking to Ralle or his chosen representatives, or you leave to another site / make your own site. Given the freedom of choice allowed by the internet, dictatorships tend to work better than democracies, on the internet, as you have a relatively stable system of governance, consisting of people who the owner of the site (In this case, Ralle) believes are able representatives of him.

This is just a suggestion that relieves Ralle of so much to do. Besides having to watch and see who would be the best Admin, he can simply set up a stable community effort.

You haven't really elaborated on this idea at all, but based on what you have said...
1. Admin Contact.
2. You can easily contact admins via their listed IM addresses or via PMs, emails or some other such method. Why would specifically appointed people be necessary or helpful? As far as I can see, only allowing them to act as messengers between the members and the administration would only slow and worsen communication.

Again, this would relieve you of so much to do. Allowing you more time with more important things.

No. Once again, I repeat: The hive is a dictatorship. 'Law', as such, is managed by Ralle's chosen representatives, and if a person believes they have been unfairly judged, all they have to do is 'appeal' to Ralle, and he will make a final judgement on it. This system is efficient and for the most part reliable. Requiring the input of multiple people before making any decisions merely bogs down the system in needless beauracracy, and most members (unfortunately) do not really know the rules well enough to judge, so it would just end up being staff members judging anyway.

Good point, although, this system would be run by the staff, yet besides having people not liking the decisions, they can simply leave it to them. You would appoint the best users for the job, of course.

I can tell, that Ralle likes to have more members, and this would help develop the reputation of the Hive.

Our current moderator invitation/application system is quite thorough, and was originally designed by the extremely helpful Wolverabid.

The idea given would produce a more fruitful Hive. EXAMPLE: People like certan peoples' models, whenever the majority of the people like a certan modeler, they would feel more comfortable being able to vote for there next moderater. It also helps eliminate the possibility of one Admin liking a modeler, yet the majority of the public doesn't. Further increasing the Hives popularity, and quality. If they do not like the next model mod, they will not upload models. Making the Hive not as good.

...What? The phrasing of this is almost incomprehensible, and I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. Also see flaws with your 'court' system, above.

I am saying don't try to force the Hive users by banning other users in front of there faces. Otherwise, in the long run, more people will do ban worthy acts. Sometimes, I can go in chat, and people will say things like, "All of the moderaters have gotten drunk with banning!" or sayings to the same effect. This causes 'mutiny' within the Hive, which will ultamately cause Ralle more trouble.

Moderators have rules to follow; you just don't know of them all. Perhaps they should be transparent, perhaps not, but that's not the argument you're making in any case. Also see flaws with your 'court' system, above.

Good, it seems Ralle is doing very well with this.

The administration does listen to users' suggestions; however, users often make suggestions in an unreasonable manner, do not flesh their ideas out enough, do not explore the consequences of their ideas, or present otherwise flawed ideas. Were a moderator to do the same, their ideas would be equally ignored.

Again, good. You are apperently doing great with this too.

Not really sure what you're on about, but I'll assume you're talking about a 'house' type idea, as some schools have. If you are, this just seems plain unecessary. Also, how exactly would it 'develop trust between team members'? Further, that almost implies that people outside one's team would be untrusted.

I meant more of split groups that participate in different events. Such as challenges, and each group would consist of users. You would have group points, from whenever the group beats another group at a particular event. It would develop trust because of the group effort. And it would not taint the trust between the other group and them, because of the size of the groups. The bigger the crowd, the less personal it gets.

Why? People with negative rep are easily recognized in any case, and moderators already pay special attention to repeat offenders.

Good, again, another good job by you guys.

What is a 'jail mode', exactly? Also see flaws with your 'court' system, above. Furthermore, moderators will not usually ban someone for their first one or two (minor) rule-breakages, but rather warn them instead. Forum bans are also dealt only vary rarely, with -rep and smaller infractions being the preferred method of punishment.

Good, glad to see that this punishment issue is well taken care of.

And, the 'jail mode' would be made to have the users not completely expelled from the Hive, but rather, for them to be able to witness large events and small events, without being able to participate, (except to the Admins). Furthermore, they could watch chat, but not comment. This would likely cause them to be more careful to obey rules. And if they continue to be bad. Simply ban them, and the other users would not feel bad.

I think it would be nice to clear what's an Administrator's job on Hive.

By the way, this is a website. The most serious crime a user can commit here is flaming, posting inappropriate stuff, spamming, things like that and the most serious punishment one can get is a ban.. It's not like the moderators and admins are going to make one's whole life miserable and it's not like they can be wrong about banning someone for spamming dozens of threads. There is no need of a "court" or jury or anything like that. If you spam you should get pawned.

1. Make a stable voting based election system. Mainly for moderaters and global moderaters. But for Admin election, only make this once a year. The particapants should send a request to the admins about a moderater position. But, he/she must meet the standard requirements for that area of skill. And then the chosen few will make ads and obtain votes for his/her election. And above all these people is, of course, Ralle.

Moderation should really not be a popularity contest.

2. Appoint several people willing to maintain stability within the forums not by posting or banning, but by talking to an Admin.

Report Post?

3. Make a court based judgment system. If someone made a bad choice, appoint several jury type of users to take a vote on what to be done.

In the majority of cases the rules are rather clear about what is to be done anyways.

4. You can NOT make peace with power. All that will do is cause the users to become even more distilled, and hopeless about the power abusive moderater. Take them to the 'court' system explained above.

If you have problems with moderators, you can report it in Admin Contact already.

Again, moderation should not be a popularity contest, and some moderators will legitimately piss off a good deal of people (Ex, if they enforce the rules well and a ton of those people break them and suffer for it).

5. Give the moderaters a set of rules to follow, and if they break one, send them to the 'court' system above.

There are rules, guidelines, etc, for moderators.

6. Listen to the users suggestions as if they were a fellow Admin. This is vital for a lasting trust between users, and Admins. Which, will make them more willing to follow basic rules.

If this isn't already happening, then fair enough.

7. Divide the Hive into teams, maybe 2 teams. This will develope trust between team members.

I've got a feeling it would just make moderators more protective of each others' positions, which is the last thing we need.

8. When a person has a rep level, below -10, appoint someone to watch everything they do. (For +rep of course.)

People really have better things to do, and if the person continues to be an idiot, it isn't hard to find out.

9. Do not simply ban a person for one incident. Send them to a jail mode (spectater mode) for a period of time. Before you do this, give them over to the court system explained above.

It's pretty hard to get banned from doing one thing, so if you do, you almost definitely deserve it.

10. Create an official pole section, that can only be used/created by Admins. Here, you will appoint Admins, moderaters, and such.

Welcome to the THW poll forum?

While others can post here, it's not like it isn't moderated.

What fails is not exactly the administration, it is administration capable of helping Ralle in the scripting/administrating, and that's my definition of administrator, otherwise, they're as good as global moderators, the only difference is that administrators can say they are on a higher ground.

Samuraid helps with the scripts, etc (the server), and Archian (when active) helps with the staff, etc.

This is just a suggestion that relieves Ralle of so much to do. Besides having to watch and see who would be the best Admin, he can simply set up a stable community effort.

Somehow I'm skeptical that a popularity contest would elect the best people for the job... ever had a student council at your school?

Again, this would relieve you of so much to do. Allowing you more time with more important things.

It wouldn't make any difference... people do that with Report Post and Admin Contact already.

The idea given would produce a more fruitful Hive. EXAMPLE: People like certan peoples' models, whenever the majority of the people like a certan modeler, they would feel more comfortable being able to vote for there next moderater. It also helps eliminate the possibility of one Admin liking a modeler, yet the majority of the public doesn't. Further increasing the Hives popularity, and quality. If they do not like the next model mod, they will not upload models. Making the Hive not as good.

Oh... god, no. Just because someone makes good models doesn't mean they're at all intelligent.

I am saying don't try to force the Hive users by banning other users in front of there faces. Otherwise, in the long run, more people will do ban worthy acts. Sometimes, I can go in chat, and people will say things like, "All of the moderaters have gotten drunk with banning!" or sayings to the same effect. This causes 'mutiny' within the Hive, which will ultamately cause Ralle more trouble.

Seeing as those people have no idea to know why those people are banned, and 99% of those banned are multiaccounts, then they really shouldn't be whining. If they want to ask why someone was banned, sure, but random whining will happen, and is irrational.

[And, the 'jail mode' would be made to have the users not completely expelled from the Hive, but rather, for them to be able to witness large events and small events, without being able to participate, (except to the Admins). Furthermore, they could watch chat, but not comment. This would likely cause them to be more careful to obey rules. And if they continue to be bad. Simply ban them, and the other users would not feel bad.

There is already such a thing, it's called Global Ignore, and it does sometimes happen.

Hmm....
Do you have an example of an inconsistency?
Honestly, I'm not sure what you mean, so I was hoping you could give me an example.

The punishment for certain rules being broken (Look at the infractions archive), and the fact that I don't believe Moderators should be punished any differently than Users, for example.

How effective is the administration... I'm not sure about overall, but I know some admins are more effective than others...

Yes, Wolve's gone. We relied on him too much. Instead of saying "oh, we'll do that when Wolve gets back" you're completely missing the point. What if he never comes back? The admins (and other people in general) need to stop whining about "when he'll get back", and instead get other people to cover the jobs that Wolve did

I find the admins to be verry inefective when dealing with my trolling complaints and outher user issues

also a key issue that i have with the admins is the fact that they are makeing it a fact that wolver will return

Well they are somewhat effective because it is hard to manage and control big site such this but they are organised, help people when they have time. Yeah they can do alot more and better their jobs, but depending here is chaos now wothout Wolverabid and others they must continue to be united with Ralle as main leader. It is not true that it is Dictatorship because here is total freedom, people can say or to mainly whatever they want. many of them deserved ban and they still stay here and spam...