/tg/Station 13

Currently, the admin candidate process requires at majority headmin approval, or complete approval, decided each headmin term. My question to you all is, are you currently satisfied with the current system and standards we have for choosing candidates? If not, what would you change?

edit for an addition related question: also, what are *your* standards for a candidate? connections, hours played, notes, etc

One of the most important things to me with regards to admin candidacy is how well I expect them to interact with the rest of adminbus. Even if someone seems like a great admin, but makes other people uncomfortable, then we simply cannot promote them, lest we hurt adminbus as a whole.

With that in mind, I think requiring all 3 head admins to approve a candidate is completely fine. The worst case scenario in this case is not gaining another admin, which is better than a potentially objectionable admin getting on the team.

One thing I would like to do is make it more clear to trainers why someone is denied, I remember a fair bit of candidates being shot down with just a "no", without clarification.

I have also thought about applying notes on people who have been approached for candidacy, but are denied. Potentially secret as to not create a stigma around denying adminning. I've noticed a lot of candidates in the threads being replied to with "they already said no", I think documenting this would help ease that.

I posted this before the edit, but I'll respond to that too:

edit for an addition related question: also, what are *your* standards for a candidate? connections, hours played, notes, etc

I don't have any hard rules, but I am pretty picky about who I choose. An active connection to me is important, though in my eyes a couple of rounds every day is more than enough.

It's often hard to tell your policy opinions when you're just a player, outside of your notes. For that reason, having a reasonably good recent note history (like, within 6 months or so) is important. Iffy behavior will make me want to wait a few months before asking again.

And as I said before, how well I expect you to get along with the rest of adminbus is extremely important. That doesn't necessarily mean being a friend or anything, but more that your presence doesn't make people uncomfortable.

Prefer unanimous headmin approval at each step. Each headmin elected by different team. Represent different voices.

Host vote. Player vote. Admin vote. Work together as team to accomplished shared goals. Compromise if necessary. Definition of team.

Aim to include initial trainer as part of admin promotion process if trainer wishes. Crack open black box. See what inside. Hope it taste like purple.

Form of feedback to trainers. See what work. See what need improvement. Demystify process. Hopefully set standard for future headmin terms. If failure, can always revert. Little harm done.

Look for players who are positive infulence in shifts. Positive influence in community. Not admin team metafriends. Just people who aren't shitlords. Make community or servers a better place.

These candidates high chance to gel with admin team. Apple cart no longer upset. Placated. Apple cart uprising averted. For now.

Expect admin trainers to do legwork. Will ask they sell me on a candidate. Pros. Cons. Their own personal thoughts. In return, will make informed decisions. Trust admin trainers. Focus on giving people a chance. Worst case scenario, failed candidacy. Balance risks with gains.

Every other requirement stems from this. Enough connections to showcase personality. Over a long enough time to showcase consistency. Enough connections for admin trainer to vouch for you. No hard & fast requirements.

Can teach rules. Can teach policy. Can teach how to research when answer unknown. Expect new admins to know nothing about being an admin. Know nothing about policy enforcement. Know nothing about precedent. Teach all.

Cannot teach good personality. Cannot teach good fundamentals as a human being. Can try polish a turd. Do not want to leave behind legacy of shiny turds as part of headmin term.

I'm happy with the system of needing unanimous headmin approval for candidates. I think it's a good filter, and if one headmin doesn't agree with a candidate being on the team I feel that it would be weird to disregard their opinion altogether. I do think that rough headmin expectations could be better communicated to trainers though.

Personally I look for people who are quietly good. People who are patient and respectful, who aren't necessarily looking for attention. They've got to be reasonably active with few notes, and have a good attitude in ahelps.

honestly have a simple strawpolll request to be honest, rather than having a bunch of headmins approving.

The people who understand the admin team the best are the headmins, and the best candidates are those who mesh with the team the most. So I don't see any reasoning in changing the candidacy process to not require majority approval.

As for candidates, I like to see few notes. Strong member of the community. Good playtime, and coverage of time zones not as commonly covered by the current team.

Even if we were to make it less than unanimous, you'll be bringing in admins who one headmin doesn't think should be there, which can result in some toxic situations in adminbus.

I think ensuring everyone agrees (and taking into account feedback from the community and admins on their trialmin threads) is critical.

I'm fine with this way of approving candidates, however it's unclear to the player base what the trainers and head admins want in a candidate. Ideally I'd clean this up giving players a better idea of what they need to do to raise their chances of being a candidate.

The current system is fine, we seem to alternate between majority and full approval, which are both decent options.

When I am looking at a possible candidate I consider hours and rounds along with how I see them carry themselves in the community. Notes can have an affect on things but they are like the last part of consideration and there can be mitigating circumstances.

I want no changes to this, I think it works as it is

candidates should at least be given a try because immediate gut reactions are dumb and can result in perfectly competent people getting passed over due to personal bias, which shouldn't come into the admin process at all