03.04.2015, 18:45
As somebody who've been an admin on several communities since 2010 I've got quite some experience on this topic.
At first the important thing is why somebody wants to become an admin. I've seen way too many kids who just loved the power they had and their main motivation was to punish people. As for myself; moderating was a nice part of the "job" but I only punished if I had to, not because I wanted to.
On the other hand, how can server owners expect otherwise if they just appoint somebody as admin out of the blue? The kid is new to the commands, has no idea what to do so he just comes up with his own ideas. In the times where I was responsible for the admin team I simply used a probation period:
- First the admin was hired in a lower level, like "moderator" or "junior admin" like some serves like to call it. The admin was given a "handbook" where his tasks were described. We gave the admin a minimum of 24 hours to read it and then he was free to resign if he didn't like the task. Then he was supposed to handle simple reports and spectate players. He only had access to basic commands like spectate, ban, kick, prison, etc. Probation mostly took two weeks in which the admin was supposed (actually: forced) to ask question to other admins and to learn.
- After probation I spoke to other admins and the server owner and we decided whether to promote or remove the probationary. If promoted he'd gain more commands to use.
As for whether or not to show admins: I liked the system where admins can use a command to go on admin duty (/aduty) on their regular account. Only if they were on admin duty they had access to their admin commands, only the admin chat was available if they were off duty.
If admins went on duty their "admin name" was visible. Yes, it could be seen as prestige, but didn't they deserve it by being good enough to be admin in the first place?
At first the important thing is why somebody wants to become an admin. I've seen way too many kids who just loved the power they had and their main motivation was to punish people. As for myself; moderating was a nice part of the "job" but I only punished if I had to, not because I wanted to.
On the other hand, how can server owners expect otherwise if they just appoint somebody as admin out of the blue? The kid is new to the commands, has no idea what to do so he just comes up with his own ideas. In the times where I was responsible for the admin team I simply used a probation period:
- First the admin was hired in a lower level, like "moderator" or "junior admin" like some serves like to call it. The admin was given a "handbook" where his tasks were described. We gave the admin a minimum of 24 hours to read it and then he was free to resign if he didn't like the task. Then he was supposed to handle simple reports and spectate players. He only had access to basic commands like spectate, ban, kick, prison, etc. Probation mostly took two weeks in which the admin was supposed (actually: forced) to ask question to other admins and to learn.
- After probation I spoke to other admins and the server owner and we decided whether to promote or remove the probationary. If promoted he'd gain more commands to use.
As for whether or not to show admins: I liked the system where admins can use a command to go on admin duty (/aduty) on their regular account. Only if they were on admin duty they had access to their admin commands, only the admin chat was available if they were off duty.
If admins went on duty their "admin name" was visible. Yes, it could be seen as prestige, but didn't they deserve it by being good enough to be admin in the first place?