Board Thread:Policies/@comment-867021-20121204175146/@comment-100066-20121208160619

Okay, my thoughts on Process:

1) I think having more admins is a fine thing. I don't want to wait until we have a "need" for more because we always have a need for admins. People come and go, life interferes, stuff happens. I would rather have more admins than less. Now that we now we can back and admin out if he/she violates site policy, I feel even better about this.

2) I like the "one year" policy because it is a fixed standard that can apply equally to everyone. We can see who is consistent over school semesters, works cycles, and summer breaks. It is also a quick way to shoot down users who are not serious about the process of maintaining this site.

3) In my mind, one of the largest factors to consider is how someone deals with other users. A steady contributor is one thing, but if they are harsh with other users, or too heavy on the block button, we will have a problem. There are some admins here who don’t deal with problem users much and that is fine. They prefer editing to scrubbing message boards for role-players and vandals. That is fantastic because we need people to play to their strengths (this is another plus for having more admins because each one can focus more closely on what they like). But we do need to be sure that a potential admin has a history of dealing fairly with other users.

4) We can certainly continue our discussion of ADour now, but I would like to not have any more nominations until we can lock this thread down. Nominations and discussions that get voted down will be much less hurtful if they occur behind closed doors. A six month delay on failed nominations seems reasonable, but we should include some criteria that we can pass to the user to say, “Hey, we are thinking about you as an admin, but we would like to see more xxxx from you”. Also, it may go without saying, but I think that self-nominations should not be considered.