new system to rank up(for admins)

to begin a new system to rank up in the server as a staff member(admin) to remove that the decision is in one persons hand but that it is in the hands of more then one.
This if accepted will be similar to the member applys.

How it works

any admin who wants to rank up has to make an apply to rank up. similar to member but then a little different. when this admin has applied each admin(which is accepted and passed the trial time, lets say lvl 5 and higher) is able to vote on it. However to avoid useless votes they gotta give 2 arguments both supported with proof of their statement so it stays rational. If they got one argument with a lot of proof it is not valid because they need 2 arguments and if they got 2 arguments but only proof on one it also becomes an invalid vote and it wont count. So you need 2 arguments with provided proof else the vote does not count. and for each rank you need to apply from level 5 to 8

Why make it a team decision?

simply because the more people vote the more opinions there are. the more opinions the more the vote is rightfully it is. I think this is more rightfully because they need proof to make their vote and argument valid(removing the matter of popularity). This also implies that there are more views on that person applying not everyone sees the same side of a person so this way you get to see all sides.

Some notes about the voting
- at each argument you need proof
- can not be based on pure opinion or hate(if that is the case i suggest they get punished)
- if there is double proof of it then the first person who posted it counts else it isnt valid so you have unique proof of each argument(exept quotes from the apply)
- the proof can not be acted or played
- without proof your vote is NOT valid and will not be counted

now lets move to an example to what it could look like(ofcourse this is just a small example the template can look very different):

How long have you been admin in DS?:

Why you want to rank up?:

why do you think you earn it?:

Are you only here for the ranks(if not tell us why not)?:

how would you be able to help better as a higher rank?:


now lets say admin1 who is level 6 wants to rank up and this is his apply:

Code:

How long have you been admin in DS?: 3 months

Why you want to rank up?: so i can help better

why do you think you earn it?: because i been admin for 3 months

Are you only here for the ranks(if not tell us why not)?: no i am here to help

how would you be able to help better as a higher rank?: i would be able to acces more commands to help others

now these could be possible votes:

-1
not enough reason to rank up and it doesnt got enough words to it doesnt matter how long your admin
proof:
 

admin1 wrote:

why do you think you earn it?: because i been admin for 3 months

*screenshot of admin1 using his power to troll*

only here for ranks

admin1 wrote:

how would you be able to help better as a higher rank?: i would be able to acces more commands to help others

Now what another vote could be:
+1
a good admin deserves it

i believe that he can help with more commands better
- screenshot of another admin whos level 7 using his power


now what would be the result: vote 1 would be posted valid because he showed proof of it in both arguments now vote 2 would be invalid because he only provided proof for one argument and he cant proof his view on how admin1 acts. now if there was another vote with the proof which was given in vote 1 then that would not count since all proof has to be unique.

well this is my idea and the example is just a quick look on how it could be(if accepted). i know this is a big change but sometimes you should take those. well let the voting begin!(i want stormy_wolf to make the final decision since he is the main owner and this is a big change for the server)

i allow admins who ask me to edit this post to edit it as long as you keep a copy of the previous version in a spoiler and they need to give their name and what they edited

Its good idea tho we can improve the plan even more but Management needs to sanction this first.
P.s. Why I think you are pointing me out as 'admin1' ? Remember we both were trolling each other with admin cmds ?

[DS]Ameen wrote:

Its good idea tho we can improve the plan even more but Management needs to sanction this first.
P.s. Why I think you are pointing me out as 'admin1' ? Remember we both were trolling each other with admin cmds ?

Im not lol i just had to get a name and was like ah admin1 will do. If i wanted to report ya would have already been reported ik we were messing around

[DS]DanTe wrote:

I think this a really good and fair idea for rank ups since the owner is Inactive most the times.Though Trial admins are accepted by the Owner himself.
Still I don't understand how lvl5+ admins can provide valid proofs.As an example,if someone wants to mention Super Efficient and long Activity as a good factor,how can he get some proofs for that? I mean we can not record the length of players activity.
generally I guess proofs are good idea but it's hard to provide them in most cases.I suggest that they should only get proofs for -1 activities like abusing powers or ... we can not simply spec admins.it's kinda like spying and it doesn't feel good.you know what I mean
On the other hand I think our lvl5+ admins are Supposed to be trustful and mature enough to vote wisely and honestly.So if it's gonna be lvl5+ admins who vote,then we don't need proofs for +1 point.
I liked the format of the app,yet I think we can add some more questions.

i understand that getting proof is hard only it is to prevent that it wont be the same vote over and over that is why proof is needed a fact is needed that supports your argument else 1 person can say +1 - very helpfull and then the others can just copy and paste it is to prevent that. and you dont need to spec them xD you can just play normally and take screenshots i mean this has to do with being helpfull and being a good admin

well this is your suggestion I understand your concerns but I'm saying voters should be qualified and mature enough to prevent acts like copy pasting other votes.They should be able to vote,without considering other votes.
If and only if the voter is qualified then we may not need proofs.
The problem is that the qualification of the voter is not measurable unless Owner And Head admins approves him/her which it's gonna be another longer story

By the way I really liked your idea.let's see what others will say

Its good idea to have such system when Management is inactive. But i agree with Dante anyhow. We can't or its hard to get all proofs to prove particular admin is good/bad or active/inactive but simply point out his negative part is good. This will avoid jealously and moreover admin can know and improve this negative part.
DS is facing hard days now. Apart from "not hosted tab" and Management inactivity we have bunch of inactive of inactive admins. So its essential to kick inactive admins, create slots for new active admins and promote admins who are working hard even when server is facing hard time.
And about "mature" admin, it need not be only lvl5+ admins, we have some good and mature admins below lvl5 too tho most are inactive and on other hand few bossy admins above lvl5

[DS]DanTe wrote:

well this is your suggestion I understand your concerns but I'm saying voters should be qualified and mature enough to prevent acts like copy pasting other votes.They should be able to vote,without considering other votes.
If and only if the voter is qualified then we may not need proofs.
The problem is that the qualification of the voter is not measurable unless Owner And Head admins approves him/her which it's gonna be another longer story

By the way I really liked your idea.let's see what others will say

i like the qualification idea however:P who will be able to give it? head admin? owner? we can do it like this owners can give qualification only then if the person who recieved it abused it then head admins can remove it so there is a check both ways(for example person1 got qualification given by the owner and abuses it then head admins dont need to report it to the owner but can remove it. but if person1 didnt abuse it then the head admin gets punished for it since you obviously need something to proof it)

[DS]Ameen wrote:

Its good idea to have such system when Management is inactive. But i agree with Dante anyhow. We can't or its hard to get all proofs to prove particular admin is good/bad or active/inactive but simply point out his negative part is good. This will avoid jealously and moreover admin can know and improve this negative part.
DS is facing hard days now. Apart from "not hosted tab" and Management inactivity we have bunch of inactive of inactive admins. So its essential to kick inactive admins, create slots for new active admins and promote admins who are working hard even when server is facing hard time.
And about "mature" admin, it need not be only lvl5+ admins, we have some good and mature admins below lvl5 too tho most are inactive and on other hand few bossy admins above lvl5  

i meant lvl 5+ or admins which passed the trial period:P

[DS]Nameless wrote:

i like the qualification idea however:P who will be able to give it? head admin? owner? we can do it like this owners can give qualification only then if the person who recieved it abused it then head admins can remove it so there is a check both ways(for example person1 got qualification given by the owner and abuses it then head admins dont need to report it to the owner but can remove it. but if person1 didnt abuse it then the head admin gets punished for it since you obviously need something to proof it)

Yeah you just completed the idea Sounds perfect to me.Hopefully we have lots of good admins (and members) So we don't need to worry about it much.Yet I Still think we need proofs for Negative Factors in votes.
The voting method and the Application is almost completed.Now we have to wait for Stormy_Wolf or Razor to decide.

[DS]DanTe wrote:

[DS]Nameless wrote:

i like the qualification idea however:P who will be able to give it? head admin? owner? we can do it like this owners can give qualification only then if the person who recieved it abused it then head admins can remove it so there is a check both ways(for example person1 got qualification given by the owner and abuses it then head admins dont need to report it to the owner but can remove it. but if person1 didnt abuse it then the head admin gets punished for it since you obviously need something to proof it)

Yeah you just completed the idea Sounds perfect to me.Hopefully we have lots of good admins (and members) So we don't need to worry about it much.Yet I Still think we need proofs for Negative Factors in votes.
The voting method and the Application is almost completed.Now we have to wait for Stormy_Wolf or Razor to decide.

ya need proof for positive and negative:P

[DS]Fire723 wrote:

Well I think this idea is good but at another perspective it's not really. The good thing about it is that the ones who are really active and stuff like that ("role model admin", I think I don't have to explain this), they can get their well deserved promotion. The bad thing is that some admins might have a whole different timezone so other admins can't see them in action frequently.
I think we need some conditions e.g. if you want to rank up from level 5 to 6, you have to be level 5 for 3 months and you must have a very good reputation. Well it's not me who can decide, and I don't know if it gets denied or not, I want to see the management's opinion first.

ofcourse there needs to be conditions. I think i forgot to mention that in the post but with conditions like what you gave 3 months level 5. with the admins and different timezones it is just like member apps(you stay a little later to see them, or the applicant stays a little later. that can be a fix but in member apps it was never a problem so i dont see why it should be a problem here.