Admin Feedback Thread (Archived)

[aerelm]

It is often simply not clear enough how you guys came to a decision. It is said that each and every decision is a communal effort - but for some reason - at least to me... it rarely feels like it. ( especially when it is mentioned that there are times to rush through reports for example - i simply cannot imagine the team sitting together to discuss each report fairly and objectively )

As mentioned a few times in the past, every admin decision other than sanctions* follows a straightforward and systematic course: First the subject is initially discussed on Skype among the admins present at the time (Usually 3 to 5), then a discussion thread is posted for it in our subforum where it gets a more thorough discussion (which is generally left open for 4 - 7 days), then the conclusion of that thread is put to vote (open for 7 days, so every admin gets to vote on it, but it's usually wrapped up before the deadline when it's decided) and if it's approved, a notice is posted for it (with the admin posting the notice picked at random, and generally one of the greens who wasn't part of the initial discussion, to better reflect the "collective decision" aspect of each move), and if it's not approved it's either re-discussed or dismissed based on the situation. Also, on the subject of transparency: as of we have been posting open community discussion threads along with the admin discussion one for any major change and taking the input of that thread into account before reaching the actual voting stage.

To use this very thread as an example of how admin discussion works: The idea was first brought up by one admin around a week ago, and once the Skype discussion was concluded another admin posted a discussion thread for it which remained open for a few days, then it was included in the next vote, where it received input from every admin (and it's worth noting that our voting process is not a simple Y/N, and each one of the greens include an elaboration on their vote), and after the vote had passed, which was followed by the usual "so who gets to post this one?" discussion on Skype, Garrett posted the thread. So, as you can see, no individual admin is ever responsible for the notice they're posting and it's always the collective decision of the team. That is why it's been repeatedly stated that no individual admin in responsible for a decision or a sanction simply because they're the one posting the notice for it.

* In case of typical/obvious violations such as F1 and so on, the report always receives input from at least two admins before being processed by a third one. In more complicated cases, though, it's processed through an actual discussion system, and the more severe punishments such as bans are always put through an actual vote before being decided.

SRP approvals/disapprovals - do not only write "approved" but write approved WHY... and if a SRP was rejected - also write WHY ... openly, publicly - so that other players can learn from successes and mistakes.

Owners of unsuccessful SRP requests are always sent a PM after their request is processed, including explanation on why their request was denied and a suggestion or two on things they can alter/improve to increase their chances when they repost the request. The reason failed SRPs are not made visible is because we don't want it to turn into "public shaming", as that would discourage people from going for promising fresh ideas (as is the intention of the SRP system) if they're not 100% sure about it. As for the approved SRPs, reading the actual request is already a good enough way of "learning from their success" (as you put it), and including a specific set of reasons on why the SRP was approved would most likely produce the side-effect of some people trying to replicate that success through the exact same methods, which takes the originality out of the system.