Alright, so I really hate to bring them into this, but I was talking to Justin about it and he seemed to agree. Yeah, they have lives, but it seems like they go for weeks at a time without coming here. It's been almost a week for both of them. What if something important comes up? Justin made a point about having 8 admins. Yeah, it seems outrageous, but what if only 3 were active. Here's how he states it.



your opinions?

8 administrators? A bit too much i think...there is no need for 8. Too many chefs in the kitchen you know.
At the most i think 4 would be sufficient...
but 8? nah...
and the adminstrators do come here, they actually can be very active, but they are doing "backstage" work. they aren't posting in the forums or anything, but they are working the back of createblog to make sure things go smoothly up front, and i think they are the only ones that can resize signatures and accept members to official member status, and all that. So they can spend 1 hour doing all this stuff backstage, but you wouldn't know it.
lol basically, i think 3 or 4 is plenty of administrators...no need for 8

well, then demote inactive admin to headstaff.

Three to Four admins wouldnt be that bad, it would cover more bases -shrug-
8 admins is way too much though.

I just think we should choose people who are active to be in the top positions.

Doesn't that make more sense, and seems so much easier?

Sure, these people used to be very active and involved, but they're not now. If the head honchos aren't ever going to be there, why should they be the deciding factor in big decisions that affect the entire community? People who are more integrated should make those decisions.

I can be the admin for weekends because; I stay home for the whole day. (I’m available during noon, night, midnight, and late night). I’m an owl =]. We do need a few admin that actually stays up late to moderate the forums.


Anyways, 7-8 is good enough. I don’t think many moderators/admin are available at around 11:45pm-1:30am (midnight-ish). I mean, we need at least 1-2 moderators/admin that are available during late nights. That’s the time when most spamming occurs in the forum. I remember seeing 3 pages of spam in the feedback forum. Those spammers claim to “raid” CreateBlog (That’s what they say). The next morning, spam topics disappear.

edit.

I’m confused w/ the admin and moderator’s job.
Skip this post.

Ummmm.....you cant just become an admin. You to already be on staff




Like I said before 8 admins is silly. Yes, we do need more active admins but lets not get ridiculous with it. Considering that People staff do most of the moderating and Admins mostly supervise and work behind the scenes.

so 8 is just a number justin used to prove a point. he's not saying HEY CB WE NEED 8 ADMINS. hes saying that if 8 admins are needed, then so be it if only 3 are active. the 5 others wont be doing anything. hes not saying that jusun needs to go out and find 6 other admins.

if we up the current number of admins to 3, as was the case when i first got here, and they were all active, then we can just promote and demote between head staff and admin as necessary

i mean, there are current head staff who would be better sutied to th eadmin job than are people who are inactive for long periods, how ever valid the reasons

i mean, are either roxy or christina actually aware that by laws ar ebeing written?

How can he assume they wont all be active or if any would be active at all? Exactly...he cant. Even though I get what he is trying to say even though it doesnt really make much sense to promote people only to assume more than half wont be active.

well then appoint those that are active


edit://
this was me.

This post has been edited by incoherent: Oct 14 2005, 02:02 PM

^
well, yeah



we can assume that if we appointed several really activ emembers of staff to admin status, they would continue to be active

but yeah, it doesnt make sense to assume whoever we appoint will suddenly drift away...

^
thats the point that justin was trying to prove.

i think an increase in admin would be a good idea...but only 4
the admin we have now do their jobs, though. they just aren't online as much any more. they know what has to be done on cb due to their experience as a member and as a forum mod, so its not easy to pick qualified people for that particular job

I think there should be some kind of procedure for admins to deal with inactivity then, such as 1) checking in with cB at least so-and-so many times a week, 2) appointing a temp admin if he/she goes away for a while... etc. Since admins' words are the last in adding new staff members, it is crucial that they know what goes on around cB, and that can only happen if he/she is actually around and participating in cB business.

I know admins probably come by cB whenever they have the chance, but maybe, just maybe, a quota needs to be placed on the number of visits and participation? Though this is a violation of sorts, it would lessen, if not eliminate the problem of inactivity.

A quota does need to be put in place.
I was told several of the admins/heads were not even aware we were hiring when we did and didn't participate in the decision-making. So why are they the biggest deciding factor if they're not even here to make the decision? Nothing against them but..it was going on for a week or so.

I think all we need is 4 and just..don't put inactive people in the spot.

Having a life is one thing, but not even stopping by for weeks at a time is another. Everyone has time to at least stop by for even 10 minutes a day. I know this. I can sneak on for hours at a time even though I'm grounded, it's not that hard to stop by once in a while..

Though I agree with everything, I do feel a tad uncomfortable if we were to require admins to stop by at least once a day. If once and a while means at least four times a week for 30 mins each time as a start, then that would work with me.

Well I don't think we need to make a time set..

Make it like an actual job. Put in a certain amount of hours of work per week. But it just seems so automated....Just say stop by an approximate amount of time, and it can fluxuate due to some weeks being busier than others...

They don't have to stop by once a day, I'm just saying it's not that hard to most of the time.

as far as by-laws go, i don't think we should set a time.

i think the by-laws should read " admin should be reasonablly active, as determined by the mods", or something like that.

Yea, me too. I don't like the set amount of time.....

We're not machines, we're people. Createblog is to have fun.

And though I agree with both of you, we're now back to the problem of arbitrariness, unless "reasonably active" can be defined. To me, it is reasonable to visit cB three times a week and be active, but that may or may not be the same definition as the next person, then what?

Well yes, but I think we all agree that not stopping by for weeks at a time is unreasonable. We can all judge when someone is too inactive.

i think twice a week is lenient enough...

Okay, so then when someone doesn't come to cB in weeks, should he/she be allowed to appoint a sub?

If they're going on vacation or something, sure, why not? It gives them a way to be on leave without hurting the community and it gives the sub a chance to prove themselves.

However, when someone is continuously missing due to just not having enough time for CB and whatnot, they should not be in a high position at all.