Admins Options

[*incoherent*]

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.

have a minimum of active admins...

don't have provisions for removing admins, have provisions for adding more.

it doesn't matter if there are 8 admins if only 3 are active.

your opinions?

[KissMe2408]

Do you guys really think it is necessary/good idea to be "lending" administrative powers to people. I mean, if the administrator is away for 3 weeks or something, then there are still the other administrator(s) there to help out. I don't think there is a need to "lend". I can understand by-laws for choosing staff members, but i think this whole administrative thing is kinda pushing it.
About being active, yes they need to be active; but remember they have lives outside of CB. i don't think there needs to be a number or a limit about how much time they spend, they are responsible enough to be promoted to that position, so i think they can manage their time wisely.

[Spirited Away]

Well, lending admin powers to "people" don't sound quite as right as lending powers to a head staff who is active while the admin is away.

Not that I doesn't understand the whole "lives outside of cB" thing because it has been drilled in enough, but the point is that they need to be active to know who they're choosing to be on staff. If that's not an important factor, then I don't really have a side on this topic.

[KissMe2408]

Well, lending admin powers to "people" don't sound quite as right as lending powers to a head staff who is active while the admin is away.

Not that I don't understand the whole "lives outside of cB" thing because it has been drilled in enough, but the point is that they need to be active to know who they're choosing to be on staff. If that's not an important factor, then there's I don't really have a side on this topic.

Still, i don't like the whole "lending" powers to even head staff. That def could get messy. And are all the administrators going to be away at the same time?

Yah the administrators do need to be active. i mean there is no arguement with that. But what i'm saying is, is that there is no need to make a law about it. You know?

[Spirited Away]

And are all the administrators going to be away at the same time?

Wouldn't be the first time. Meaning yes, it happened before.

Yah the administrators do need to be active. i mean there is no arguement with that. But what i'm saying is, is that there is no need to make a law about it. You know?

So... if admins 'need' to be active and lets say that they're not and there's no law that requires them to be active? What is the point of 'needing' to be active when there's nothing to fault your inactivity?

[KissMe2408]

Wouldn't be the first time. Meaning yes, it happened before.
So... if admins 'need' to be active and lets say that they're not and there's no law that requires them to be active? What is the point of 'needing' to be active when there's nothing to fault your inactivity? 

^There doesn't have to be a "law". The administrators already know the guidelines of being active, and they obviously have the responisibility to do this. God forbid they are inactive, does that mean they will be kicked off because they were inactive for a while? What if there is a reason that they are inactive, are you giong to make laws on what is reasonable and not? because you might as well if we're try to bind everything with laws. I'm all for guidence and laws, but there comes a point where it is too much. If an admin is inactive for that long backstage i'm sure that something would be worked out. You say that the admins were all inactive in the past, and cb didn't fall apart and all hell didn't break loose.