Administration act 2010

Whamabama

Whamabama

TNPer
TNP Law
Administration Act of 2010: To bring the appointment of forum administrators under the purview of the democratic process
Section 1:
1) All new forum administrators will have to reviewed by a nominations committee and approved the Regional Assembly
Section 2:
1) In the case that a new forum administrator is needed, the current administrators will nominate a qualified individual who will thereafter be investigated by a Nominations Committee.
a) Qualified is defined as being a citizen of The North Pacific and a member of the Regional Assembly
b) The Nominations Committee will be comprised of the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, the Chief Justice of the Court and the World Assembly Delegate
2) Upon completion of the investigation, the Nominations Committee will report their findings to the Regional Assembly and recommend either approval or disapproval of the nominee, after which the nominee will be voted on.
3) If the nominee receives a positive two-thirds super-majority of the vote, then s/he shall become an administrator. If the nominee fails to receive the necessary two-thirds super-majority, then the aforementioned process shall continue until a qualified nominee has been approved.
4) During their tenure a forum administrator, all forum administrators appointed after the passage this of this bill will be barred from holding any of the offices listed as members of the Nominations Committee
5) The forum administration is permitted to decide how long an administrator will serve.
Section 3:
1) This proposal will take effect immediately upon passage
 
I'll see what others have to say, but I, as I've said before, am not a fan of government regulation of forum administration. I'm curious as to the opinions of those who I have not already spoken to.
 
To an extent, i support this.

No admin of any forum shall be given a blank cheque to do whatever they please nor should they be allowed to be above the law. They all must be held accountable as much as any TNP citizen :ADN:
 
I think some of the junk needs to be cut off of this. I think that term limits of any sort for forum admins are a bad thing. Look at Flem and Gross. Both have been admins on this forum forever. Any term restrictions would just be a bad thing in general. Why needlessly remove an admin who is doing a good job? If they're not doing a good job, then they're no longer a forum admin, simple as that.

Furthermore, I feel that admins should be allowed to hold any position they want save for the delegate or vice delegate position. Again, I use Gross. During my time here he's been both Speaker of the Assembly and Chief Justice, the whole time holding his status as an admin. The only positions where the admin/government position can be majorly abused is the Delegate/V. Delegate positions, as they also have the power to ban nations.

Finally, going along the lines of what Dyr said, the admin position shouldn't really come under any scope of the government. I think that the current admins should choose a candidate, and then the RA can vote yes or no to appoint them. That is really all that is needed.
 
While I do agree with the sentiment about forum administration under government regulation, I do feel that it is necessary, at least to a degree.

The people should have a say in who becomes an admin, and they should have a way to force the nomination and appointment of an admin should they feel that it is needed. On the flip side, the people should also have a way to force the removal of administrators if they feel that the admins are not performing their duties satisfactorily.

The current forum administration does its best, but it is obvious that they need an extra hand or two. Perhaps the addition of RA oversight will give current and future administrators the incentive to regularly check the forums for anything that needs to be done.

As Govindia said, forum admins must be held accountable.
 
We have a tradition in TNP that dates back to before I was in the game, that admin of a forum should be independent of the government; it came from bad experiences that may seem like ancient history, but we as a community learned a hard lesson then, and we've followed it ever since.

There is information about each and every user that is accessed only through the administrator control panel. Those of us who are admin have a responsibility to make certain that the privacy of that information is protected. We're quite selective about who become a global mod, and who becomes an admin. And we don't appoint more of either than we need.

Since the reitrement of Ator People from the game, we haven't felt a need to replace him as an Admin. We only have one Global mod at the moment, and the same principle applies. If activity or problems rises to a level we think those numbers should be changed, then we will address it.

In addition, many government officials are given mod powers (with a couple of limitations) over their area of the forums while they are in office. (Those limitations have to do with issuing warnings which requires an adminor global mod, and deleting posts, which we do not permit except for pornspam to keep things within the Invisionfree terms of service. With fixes implemented by Zetaboards a year or so ago, those problems have disappeared, so I think we're in a good place as far as forum administration is concerned.

If you have a masking problem or need, send a PM to Flem and I; if there's a TOS issue with a post or a user, send a PM to Flem, me, or the global mods. That's always the fastest way to make sure we hear about and address it.
 
I can understand why you'd be hesitant to appoint more admins, I really do.

However, I must disagree with your basic point: that no more admins are needed. While I must laud your quick response to my PM, that hardly seems to be the norm. I have seen multiple occasions where the admins have been extremely slow to react to needs, even with a PM (I must also note that I have seen admins browsing the forum while there were active needs and did nothing). I must wonder how many new members to the RA we'd have now if the admins had been masking regularly.

While traditions have their merits, it is often necessary for them to be either modified or tossed aside. The only change this bill creates is oversight and accountability. Under the bill the administrators would still nominate new admins, but the people would have a say.

I would still like to see an article which allowed a vote of the RA to force a nomination and also force removal.
 
It would not be difficult to rig an admin election by having a horde of supporter join the region and elect someone pre-arranged up as an admin. That is something I do not wish to see, anywhere.

I once gave a DOS player Global Mod on the Qwendran forum, he destroyed several weeks of work and drove multiple people away from the game by editing their posts into flames.

While I agree another more active admin is needed it should be someone trusted by the current admins, not some random person forced upon them by the RA.
 
I understand the sentiment, but as the bill stands, the admin team would be the ones to nominate the potential admin, and the nominations committee would have to confirm/interview the candidate. It would of course be necessary to do as much background check as possible.

Even if an article that allows the RA to force the admins to nominate someone is added, the potential admin would still have to have the trust of the current admin team and go through the Nominations Committee.

The chance of someone with nefarious intentions becoming an admin is slim, at best. Even as it stands, someone with nefarious intentions can still get on the admin team by fooling the current admins. It would take someone dedicated to the cause to take the time and effort to become an admin. If anything, it is possible that this new bill would make it harder since they are now open to interview by the Committee and confirmation by the RA.

No one here is talking about making it easy to become an admin at TNP. Gods, no. What we are talking about is introducing accountability into the system.
 
I have been in regions where admins have taken action, or lack thereof, in regions and they were not held accountable to any law simply because of a silly illogical "admin knows best" thinking.

Being an admin is as much a responsibility as being the Delegate of TNP, and neither should be above the law, and they must be held accountable to it in all aspects.
 
Also, with this legislation, the RA could stop admins from appointed admins as well...which I don't think should occur. ADMIN isnt infallible, but when it comes to forum administration, I trust their judgement.

-edit- on a related note, I agree with the opinions expressed by some that the admin team may require expansion...but I think that should be dealt with by the current admins, not legislation

-question- to those who support this bill: do you support it because you feel another admin is needed, or do you like the idea that the govt regulates forum administration?
 
I think that calling this bill "government regulation" is going a bit far. It isn't so much regulation as it is accountability. The government should be able to hold the admin team accountable to doing its duty. The people should have the ability to remove admins not doing their jobs, and the people should have a say in who becomes an admin. The factor of admin trust is never removed as it is the admins who must nominate a prospective admin.

No one is suggesting that all admin actions must be run through committee, and I would be one of the most vocal against that.

All this bill aims to do is make the admin accountable to the people and the government.
 
on what may be symantics - what if an admin misses an RA roll call? :P

And the wording seems to state that there will be an investigation, and then a vote - but no "hearing" per se? Wouldn't the latter be useful, in addition to the former?

What if we see vote stacking regarding this?
 
What if we see vote stacking with Judicial reform bills? What if we see vote stacking with any bill, reform or otherwise?

Though here it seems irrelevant to me as the admins would only nominate people they trust to perform the duties. The only ill-effect vote stacking can have is denying an admin's confirmation should one be needed.

As far as investigation or hearing, either, or, or both would work for me.
 
To clarify, the bill does not impose term limits of any kind on the admins. In fact it specifically states that

5) The forum administration is permitted to decide how long an administrator will serve.
Click to expand...

Edit: The bill grants the admins full authority to regulate themselves and they decide when to appoint a new individual. The way this works is similar to the way a Judge to the US Supreme Court is appointed - a person is nominated for the position and is approved by the Senate. The Senate does not nominate or elect an individual and the same is true with this bill.

Edit 2: The Nominations Committee is similar to the US's Senate Judicial Committee. All it does is investigate the nominee and report their findings to the RA. It does not regulate admin activity.
 
Dyr Nasad:
Also, with this legislation, the RA could stop admins from appointed admins as well...which I don't think should occur. ADMIN isnt infallible, but when it comes to forum administration, I trust their judgement.

-edit- on a related note, I agree with the opinions expressed by some that the admin team may require expansion...but I think that should be dealt with by the current admins, not legislation

-question- to those who support this bill: do you support it because you feel another admin is needed, or do you like the idea that the govt regulates forum administration?
Click to expand...
I usually trust admins for the most part, but when they do inappropriate actions, like ban someone without trial etc., then they must be taken to task if they violate someone's civil rights :ADN:
 
First of all, my apologies for not responding privately to the delegate when he PM'd me a draft of this bill. I did not realise it would be put out so quickly. But perhaps this debate is best held in the open, as it has been a number of times in the history of TNP.

I will be voting against this bill, should it come to that. I will do so for a number of reasons. But before I give them, I wonder why NK has chosen this topic to be his first legislative move?

Although there are issues with gross and I both having busy lives, i cannot believe that this is the most pressing issue that should be taxing the government? We have a judicial system in which it has proved impossible to secure a conviction. We have a declining population, and an active population which is declining even faster. We have, pretty much, NO foreign policy. In other words, I think there are more pressing concerns that should be taking up valuable legislative time, particularly at the earliest and most active stage of a government's history.

Now to the specific reasons why I will be voting against this bill.

First (and most importantly), we have always maintained in TNP a healthy separation between government interference and forum administration. This has worked well for years. It means that matters of forum security, behaviour and breeches of invisionfree's TOS can be dealt with without a lengthy legal procedure (of the sort TNP specialises in). Admins also know not to push their luck, or the community will simply walk away, as happened with the first forum S2. Admins are free to exercise their power, but not to abuse their power – without, as Grimalkin put it, “RA oversight”.

Second, the choice of forum administrators is perhaps the most difficult and dangerous of all appointments. An Admin has access to the e-mail addresses and IP addresses (at registration and ongoing) of every guest and member on the forum. Twice in our history this has been abused and data has been harvested, once from this forum and once from a forum set up by a rogue government. For this reason we have been very careful about who becomes an admin here. Ultimately, the security of this invisionfree forum is my responsibility as root admin, not that of a “nomination Committee”. This impacts your in-game security, and in some cases your real life security. I know of at least one person whose job was put at risk when their data was harvested from an in-game forum.

This should, emphatically not, be a political appointment. And the only way of ensuring that it never becomes so is to keep a strict separation of powers in place. I hate to use "thin end of the wedge" arguments, but once this principle of separation of powers is eroded, it becomes a lot easier for us to take the next step... and the next ... and the next.

I am pleased to see that the initial nomination of new admins will come from the current admin team. I just do not see the need for an nomination committee to be involved. Ten people have served as Admins on this forum over the years. I do not think that, within the bounds of security, we have been slow to expand our team when need arises and candidates present themselves.

Lastly, I will vote against this because it is poorly drafted. It is full of holes, and seems likely, eventually, to generate conflict between the admin team and the community.

I can think of a number of examples, but let me put this scenario to you:

The government feels the need to expand the admin team, and orders us to put some names forward (as per one interpretation of section 2:1). Although there seems to be no likely candidates, we are required to put names forward and unhappily do so, and the Nomination Committee investigates and chooses someone (as per section 2:2). Although the committee and the RA are happy with this choice, the admin team are not, so I decide (as per section 2:5) that the new admin will serve a term of …. 15 seconds.

Does that sound absurd? Trust me, stranger things have happened in TNP. The above would cause immediate conflict between the admin team and the government, of a sort that we have avoided in TNP for years because we have maintained a rigid separation of powers.

However, it does seem that there are those who think an expansion of the admin team would be a good idea. Never let it be said that the admin team are unresponsive to advice and we will look into this.

F.
 
flemingovia:
Although there are issues with gross and I both having busy lives, i cannot believe that this is the most pressing issue that should be taxing the government? W
Click to expand...
Oh,you know how I am. I'm not one for controversy so I decided to start with something simple.
 
Well since I am the one who posted this, let me speak my mind on it.

1. I don't think that the RA should ever be in a possition to appoint an admin. Gross, and Flem as have other stated clearly why the position of admin is a very important one, and can be very bad if the wrong person gets access to the admin CP. I am also an admin on Equilism's board, so I know very well what kind of havok can be created, and the info that can be gotten.

2. I think that if an admin is to be named, the current admins are the ones who should name the person. However giving the community a say in accepting this player in my eyes is just added security.

3. In the case where the admins can only find one suitable candidate, and nobody else, and that candidate is shot down by the RA. Well we have problems. As we the RA, cannot force the admins to choose some one who they do not trust. and nor should we.
 
TNP Law
Administration Act of 2010: To bring the appointment of forum administrators under the purview of the democratic process
Section 1:
1) All new forum administrators will have to reviewed by a nominations committee and approved the Regional Assembly
Section 2:
1) In the case that a new forum administrator is needed, the current administrators will nominate a qualified individual who will thereafter be investigated by a Nominations Committee.
a) Qualified is defined as being a citizen of The North Pacific and a member of the Regional Assembly
b) The Nominations Committee will be comprised of the Speaker of the Regional Assembly, the Chief Justice of the Court and the World Assembly Delegate
2) Upon completion of the investigation, the Nominations Committee will report their findings to the Regional Assembly and recommend either approval or disapproval of the nominee, after which the nominee will be voted on.
3) If the nominee receives a positive two-thirds super-majority of the vote, then s/he shall become an administrator. If the nominee fails to receive the necessary two-thirds super-majority, then the aforementioned process shall continue until a qualified nominee has been approved or all other nominees have been exhausted.
4) During their tenure a forum administrator, all forum administrators appointed after the passage this of this bill will be barred from holding the offices of delegate or vice delegate.  Should they wish to hold either position, the individual will step down as administrator for the duration of their term.  They may be reinstated as an administrator at the end of their term if approved by the remaining administrators.any of the offices listed as members of the Nominations Committee
5) The forum administration is permitted to decide how long an administrator will serve.
Section 3:
1) This proposal will take effect immediately upon passage
Click to expand...


Alright, the above is my take on the bill. I didn't do much really. The two biggest things that I had with it were the wording that made it sound like an admin had to be approved once the process got started. I wanted it to be clear in the law that if none of the nominees approved were voted in, then the admin team would remain as is.

The other change goes back to the fact that unless they're delegate or vice delegate, an admin can't completely abuse their power in TNP.

Let me know what y'all think.
 
Leaving aside my objection to this bill in toto, why Vice delegate? I can see the point of not being delegate and admin - which is why i stepped down as admin during my term as delegate - but the VD does not have access to the regional controls, not any governmental power other than that afforded them by the delegate

But i suppose I would ask, why tinker with flawed legislation?
 
My reasoning for Vice Delegate is the possibility that the VD can become Delegate with much less effort than anybody else. If nobody else likes it, we can just change it to delegate.

As for the legislation itself, all it's proposing is that IF we need a new admin, the RA runs them through an approval process just like Supreme Court nominations in the US. With the edits I made it leaves everything up to the current admins, save for the RA approval. If it were to become anything other than that, I wouldn't support it.

In the most basic sense of it all, this makes additions to the admin team go from:

"Hey, we need an admin. Candidate A is now an admin"

to:

"Hey, we need an admin. What do y'all think of Candidate A?"
 
Nope. I would prefer maintaining the separation of powers that we have at the moment - as I thought my earlier posts made clear. Was that a misundertanding of my position or a threat of worse consequences should I oppose?
 
I think separation of board administration and the government of TNP is necessary, but I also understand the concern that is raise with regard to lack of or slow response from administrator during recent months and during past term.

Perhaps it will be better if we try to solve this problem by discussing with the administrator team with regard to the possibility of appointing another administrator first before we consider legislation? Person that is trusted by the current administrators and is also active enough to be able to response to the government request for board administration within reasonable time. Thel or Eluvatar would be a good candidate for the post.
 
I think Chowda Head's post nailed it.

And to you referring to "separation of powers," I'm curious as to how this really affects it. Can the forum administration still, basically, do whatever it wants to do? Yes. Does the forum administration now answer to the people for its actions? Not really, no.

I mean honestly, how much impact can this really have on the admins doing their jobs? None, really. They still pick whom they want, but now the people get to give a thumbs up or down.

Truly, I believe the logic that this will cause strife between the admins and the people is flawed. How much friction could a simple confirmation cause unless one of the parties wants it?

What is so wrong with a committee checking credentials? What is so wrong with the people being able to say, "Yea, sure, we like him," or, "Gods no, no not him."

Don't the people have the right to have a say in whom they should trust? Why should the people rely solely on the "omniscient" and "infallible" admins to tell us whom to trust?

I don't know about anyone else here, but I would prefer to know exactly whom the admins are appointing.
 
Well, I think everybody has pretty much made up their mind about this. Are we going to use my version or Grim's version?
 
Being new to this body I will be brief to the members of this body...

Code: 
I have been on various boards and have seen these events go both ways which has been the biggest problems with forums and NS.  Anything and I mean anything that is forum related should be kept out of the governments hands.  Mainly because a lot of the boards are kept under the trusted hands of the admins, which looks like is working fine at the current moment.

...As I say to you Members, why fix something that isn't broken?
 
Skywalker1:
...As I say to you Members, why fix something that isn't broken?
Click to expand...
I totally agree no need for us to regulate forum administration


:offtopic:
I recommend for any election the admin should send E-mail or PM to all the RA members to inform them about election date etc at least a week before voting starts.
 
While I agree something has to be done to help ensure there's always at least one active admin that can help out with things, there should be some level of regulation of the forum admins so they don't abuse their power or violate someone's due process rights or civil rights altogether for whatever reason. I speak from experience :ADN:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top