An idea to be an admin

[Coreybush11]

Can there be a part in that little old admin application that asks a question about something that happens in the server that needs admin assistance, so  the admin can say how they would respond?


At least to see if they would be level-headed enough to be an admin?

Like I have said before, people go apeshit over some of the smallest things, like something a certain former-admin recently did. The question shouldn't really decide the whole app, but gives a look for others if they want to support them becoming admin or not.

A question like this,

Person 1 kills Person 2 for blocking the doorway to the location of the last object for the innocent's objective to win the map. Person 2 was a traitor, and calls RDM, saying you cannot kill someone for blocking the door.

How do you react to the situation?

A) Slay Person 1 for not having a reason to kill them that is in the rules?
B) Consult a higher-up admin for an idea?
C) Make the decision without consulting them both after the complaint, and without telling what you will do before you do it?
D) Ignore it and proceed to your own RDM complaints?
E) [Insert Own Answer]

Just an idea off the top of my head


The sample question mainly applies to the TTT server, because it is really the one where what an admin does can differ to what another does.

In a server like TF2, it would be straight-up admin neglect if they didn't mute someone who was spamming racist words over their mic, or something like that.

Like I said, the question would NOT decide the overall adminship of the person applying, and is mainly for others to decide if they would to +1 or -1 them.


Also like I said, an idea off the top of my head before I go to sleep, I'm actually upset over what happened, and would like to help prevent stuff like it from happening again. I cannot believe how some people get so angry, and have the mental instability to do some of the things they do.

[AlphaWeeaboo]

It could help in making verdicts. I've seen it done many other places.

[Pillz]

Well. Any half-wit with a brain can see through questions like that, especially on an application for admin. Just as when you see those questions on job applications, you answer with what you assume they want to hear, that you'd be hardworking and efficient, while not all answers are always true.

It's a good idea, but perhaps we should just ask: Have you read, and re-read the rules for the server you have applied? Or something, so when they break rules themselves, or don't enforce rules correctly that they should know, they can be held accountable for their actions.

[AlphaWeeaboo]

True ^^

[Coreybush11]

Well. Any half-wit with a brain can see through questions like that, especially on an application for admin. Just as when you see those questions on job applications, you answer with what you assume they want to hear, that you'd be hardworking and efficient, while not all answers are always true.

It's a good idea, but perhaps we should just ask: Have you read, and re-read the rules for the server you have applied? Or something, so when they break rules themselves, or don't enforce rules correctly that they should know, they can be held accountable for their actions.

My question and its answers was just a sample,

the question and the answers on the actual application would go more in depth, with answers that are neither good nor bad, but just an insight on how they would handle the situation. Of course someone wouldn't put that they would ignore it and not do anything at all and just teleport themselves all around the map.

[Pillz]

Well. Any half-wit with a brain can see through questions like that, especially on an application for admin. Just as when you see those questions on job applications, you answer with what you assume they want to hear, that you'd be hardworking and efficient, while not all answers are always true.

It's a good idea, but perhaps we should just ask: Have you read, and re-read the rules for the server you have applied? Or something, so when they break rules themselves, or don't enforce rules correctly that they should know, they can be held accountable for their actions.

My question and its answers was just a sample,

the question and the answers on the actual application would go more in depth, with answers that are neither good nor bad, but just an insight on how they would handle the situation. Of course someone wouldn't put that they would ignore it and not do anything at all and just teleport themselves all around the map.

I wasn't talking about the question, I was talking about having a question in general. It couldn't hurt though, it's just an extra question on the app, that I doubt 100% of people will always answer truthfully, regardless of how you make the questions and answers.

Providing them with a situation is completely different than them being in said situation. One gives you possible answers to consider, the other doesn't. They might answer right on the forums, but yeah. Whatevs, ain't preaching against it, just saying people is gonna be towels n shit yo.

[Waffuls the Huntress]

When it came to adding admins on ZPS, I would quiz them personally. I would give them a random situation and ask them to solve it without help from me. Because ZPS is practically unpossible to mess up from how I set up the punishments, I had every single admin ace the quizzes.

I realize here will be harder, because RDM is a very miserable thing, lofting around in a vast area of gray. However, I believe it can be achievable with time and effort. I like this idea of quizzing, but I don't think it belongs on an application. It gives the applicant far too much time to think of their answer, when all of us know that, as admin, we are forced to make quick, accurate decisions on the spot. Also, they're looking at the right answer; they just need to figure out which is correct. They can easily go ask someone else or take a random guess. When quizzed on the spot, it's easy to tell if someone else is getting answer from another person or not, or looking things up based on how fast they respond. Doing this in vent with a one-on-one or a two-on-one (for a witness) would be best and prevent cheating.

Please tell me what you think of my suggestion. (Technically not mine, but you get the point. :p)

[Pillz]

When it came to adding admins on ZPS, I would quiz them personally. I would give them a random situation and ask them to solve it without help from me. Because ZPS is practically unpossible to mess up from how I set up the punishments, I had every single admin ace the quizzes.

I realize here will be harder, because RDM is a very miserable thing, lofting around in a vast area of gray. However, I believe it can be achievable with time and effort. I like this idea of quizzing, but I don't think it belongs on an application. It gives the applicant far too much time to think of their answer, when all of us know that, as admin, we are forced to make quick, accurate decisions on the spot. Also, they're looking at the right answer; they just need to figure out which is correct. They can easily go ask someone else or take a random guess. When quizzed on the spot, it's easy to tell if someone else is getting answer from another person or not, or looking things up based on how fast they respond. Doing this in vent with a one-on-one or a two-on-one (for a witness) would be best and prevent cheating.

Please tell me what you think of my suggestion. (Technically not mine, but you get the point. :p)

I prefer the old idea of having an undercover admin negotiate a time where the new admin would be the only admin on, and we see how they respond to any situations that arise. We take notes, and we let them know, or post it on the forums. Trial admin should be a 2 week long period, where everyone's watching them and seeing if they deserve to be an admin.

[Ghast]

There are questions, however, that can really pry someone's true colors to come out.

For example:

A player walks up to another player and headshots him. They are both innocent. Traditionally, this would be considered RDM, but the victim of the case could care less what the other player did. In essence, that is forgiveness. The player who committed the RDM immediately feels apologetic for his actions and requests a slay during the same round. Feeling ashamed, the player leaves.

Now this is technically "RDM and Leave".

What do you do? Dismiss him as an apologetic player who acknowledged his mistake? Or deliver the ban, as he technically, broke a rule.

[Coreybush11]

There are questions, however, that can really pry someone's true colors to come out.

For example:

A player walks up to another player and headshots him. They are both innocent. Traditionally, this would be considered RDM, but the victim of the case could care less what the other player did. In essence, that is forgiveness. The player who committed the RDM immediately feels apologetic for his actions and requests a slay during the same round. Feeling ashamed, the player leaves.

Now this is technically "RDM and Leave".

What do you do? Dismiss him as an apologetic player who acknowledged his mistake? Or deliver the ban, as he technically, broke a rule.

This is the kind of question I am talking about, something that makes you think a little when making an app instead of just putting down the stuff everyone wants you to put to be an admin.

[Waffuls the Huntress]

When it came to adding admins on ZPS, I would quiz them personally. I would give them a random situation and ask them to solve it without help from me. Because ZPS is practically unpossible to mess up from how I set up the punishments, I had every single admin ace the quizzes.

I realize here will be harder, because RDM is a very miserable thing, lofting around in a vast area of gray. However, I believe it can be achievable with time and effort. I like this idea of quizzing, but I don't think it belongs on an application. It gives the applicant far too much time to think of their answer, when all of us know that, as admin, we are forced to make quick, accurate decisions on the spot. Also, they're looking at the right answer; they just need to figure out which is correct. They can easily go ask someone else or take a random guess. When quizzed on the spot, it's easy to tell if someone else is getting answer from another person or not, or looking things up based on how fast they respond. Doing this in vent with a one-on-one or a two-on-one (for a witness) would be best and prevent cheating.

Please tell me what you think of my suggestion. (Technically not mine, but you get the point. :p)

I prefer the old idea of having an undercover admin negotiate a time where the new admin would be the only admin on, and we see how they respond to any situations that arise. We take notes, and we let them know, or post it on the forums. Trial admin should be a 2 week long period, where everyone's watching them and seeing if they deserve to be an admin.

This is also something I do with my ZPS admins. I would have "rogue" admins (normally not well-known, but reliable admins, so people do not recognize them when they are in-game) in the server whenever a trial admin was on. Our trial admin period is about 2 wks - 1 month, depending on their experience and/or actions in the server.

Trial admin to me is one of the best things. If we see a single thing wrong, depending on how serious, we remove them on the spot or have a fun talk to them. Also, I really do think we should have minimum play-time in the server. It gives our community time to know who this person is, and how they are as a player. I like this because someone can easily put on an act when they want admin, and after they get it, we get another disaster like Acecool. Having them know that they have to wait a few weeks to a few months.. it'd be hard to constantly keep that act up, if it truly was an act.

For anyone who may wish to watch the trials or applicants, we really need to start getting evidence whenever a problem arises. I've noticed lately when an admin is fighting another admin, there's barely any proof besides what they say. It should be "no proof no case." Wouldn't it be unfair for one admin to make up some bull story that gets another admin removed? Or, one admin to not be removed because the other didn't have any proof? We really need to start getting it..

[Jorgen]

We should make a bunch of theese questions and just ask 3 each, and you'd have to answear atleast 2 right to be viable.

[Pillz]

We should make a bunch of theese questions and just ask 3 each, and you'd have to answear atleast 2 right to be viable.

They would have to be changed each and every application.

/Looks at old admins application/

/Checks their answer/

/Answers own application correctly/

Even if it were a short answer question, they could get the general idea from another applications, see how their answer was received, etc.

[Jorgen]

We should make a bunch of theese questions and just ask 3 each, and you'd have to answear atleast 2 right to be viable.

They would have to be changed each and every application.

/Looks at old admins application/

/Checks their answer/

/Answers own application correctly/

Even if it were a short answer question, they could get the general idea from another applications, see how their answer was received, etc.

Ofcourse we would have to change it upp, but there is a sea of questions you can ask when it comes to TTT

[Ghast]

We should make a bunch of theese questions and just ask 3 each, and you'd have to answear atleast 2 right to be viable.

They would have to be changed each and every application.

/Looks at old admins application/

/Checks their answer/

/Answers own application correctly/

Even if it were a short answer question, they could get the general idea from another applications, see how their answer was received, etc.

Uh... we don't have to post whether or not they got the question correct. In fact, there would be no "correct" answer. These questions have no "right" or "wrong". They merely bring out the morality and decision making skills of the individual. I'm high.