[WITHDRAWN] Petition to the Admin Team

The very interesting thing about all of this is my laser focus to serve the community. The signers of this petition seem to discount this very openly stated goal I have.

If I were not interested in the community, I wouldn't work at this admin stuff. I'll give an example, recently r3n (petitioner and newly appointed Global Mod) asked for a reorder of the embassy forums. I jumped on this because it was a little time consuming but I understood the importance it held for r3n and the pain that it caused him. Again, as a servant to the community I wanted to ensure in my capacity as admin to deliver to him what he needed. Whether I am or am not a citizen or RA member didn't come into play, it's the fact that I view this role as a servant to the community in aiding them run a highly functional and responsive forum.

I say that and it sounds cheesy to me. I say that and read the petition and it makes me sad that the petitioners know not my attitude towards administrating these boards and my commitment to the community.

I'm trying to wade through some of the minutae but reading BW's snarky one-liners that don't address questions I've raised or Silly String who says the petition is "bigger than you" when the petition does not state anywhere about the qualifications of any of the other admins makes it difficult. Difficult from the standpoint that many of the petition signers were looking for my "scalp" as Flem put it months ago and for some reason simply don't believe I have the ability to perform forum administration duties in an effective manner. I may never please them but I would really like to understand why they desire my removal and not instead ask the admin team this "Hey guys, we'd really like all of our admin to be at least a citizen of TNP. What do you think about that?"

But instead they've written "We'd like Punk D removed as admin. Even if he brings a nation to TNP, we want him removed. His interests do not lie with TNP."

You see how those two are two very different things? This conversation has charged and heated words because the writers of the petition chose to go the second route instead of the first. The first focuses on policy whereas the second focuses on a person.
 
Malvad:
As some have already said, my name is on the petition because Punk D has no nation in TNP and is not involved in any other way. In my opinion admins should have a certain level of activity in the region. I am not against Punk D as a person and did not sign because of some conspiracy against him. I made my decision based solely on what I considered best for the region.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the double post, but Malvad you and others have stated this.

Unfortunately, the petition you signed does have "conspiracy theories within it". For example, the petition states:

Conspiracy Theory - Punk D may use his access to gain intel on TNP's military
These potential choices he will have to make are not unlikely to occur. The North Pacific Army raids and defends. The LRI would be very interested to know when we are raiding, how many troopers we have, and anything else discussed in our military forums. I'm sure they would be interested to know if we are pursuing treaties with any other major raiding powers. These are the sort of things that defender organizations want to maintain tabs on, and giving their leader admin privileges on our forum is an invitation to let them.
Click to expand...

and
It is entirely inappropriate for their leader to have unfettered access to our entire forum, including sensitive matters of foreign and military affairs.
Click to expand...

That's the text of the petition you signed. Thus, you support the conspiracy theory within the petition's text by signing.
 
Elkhorn_6:
Along the same lines of what Abbey had said, my "signing" of this petition has no reflection on the type of person you are, as I obviously do not know you. My name appears on the list for the simple reason that you no longer have a nation in TNP. I was completely unaware of any tidings you had in other regions or what you have done in the past, therefore none of those items had any sort of consideration in my decision.

I just wanted to clarify this to you.
Click to expand...
Malvad
11 minutes ago
As some have already said, my name is on the petition because Punk D has no nation in TNP and is not involved in any other way. In my opinion admins should have a certain level of activity in the region. I am not against Punk D as a person and did not sign because of some conspiracy against him. I made my decision based solely on what I considered best for the region.
Click to expand...

Sorry. That won't fly. If that was your point, then you should not have signed this petition. Read it again, in full. The bulk of this petition essentially says "punkd cannot be trusted to be impartial. He needs to be removed whatever he does because he is not loyal to this region and may well betray us."

That is the gist of the petition. You cannot now say, "hey - nothing personal." This is about as personal as it gets.


Edit: punkd posted as I was composing my post.
 
The text of the petition overemphasizes the security aspect, and overplays the significance Punk's involvement in LRI. I do think it is a potential security risk to have an admin who is involved in other regions but not involved in this one, but I worded that concern much too strongly in the petition. If I'd taken more time to edit it, I would have toned that down a good bit.

I did not mean for this to sound like a personal attack. However, regardless of the text of the petition, there are real issues at play here that are not personal: TNP admins ought to be TNPers. Everyone who signed the petition agrees with that. Being a TNPer means more than having a nation in the region. I'd be willing to bet that all 23 agree with that one too.
 
I think if the team limited their considerations to only the text of the petition itself, that would be unfortunate. A lot of petitioners are making very good points in this thread, and I think they should be heeded.
 
Right, but none of the points raised by those not in favor of this idea should be considered, instead they should be relegated to the realm of opinion and vitriol.

I'm getting a very strong feeling that regardless of concerns being addressed, no one is going to change their mind.
 
After reading this thread I can only sum up my feelings with one word and that is disappointed. I'm disappointed in several individuals for their posts in this thread as well as the way this was handled. I was initially against Punk being an admin on these boards as I shared several of the concerns that have been laid out. I did not expect him to be impartial and believed his addition to the team would bring nothing but problems. I was proven wrong. Punk has been an exceptional admin on these boards and has been more active than several other admins.

I am saddened that these concerns were not addressed to Punk first. When you have concerns over people about their positions it is usually more productive to address them privately first. If these concerns are not addressed it would then be appropriate to state them publicly. I find both the request and the responses from certain admins/mods to be disheartening.

I will be keeping an eye on this thread and ask that everyone continue to keep this on topic and not digress to personal attacks.
 
I would like everyone to distinguish between:

1. The way this issue has been brought up, and

2. What the issue actually is.

If you think I and the other petitioners should have gone about this a different way, that's fine, but I'd ask that such an opinion not be confused with the actual issue that we are raising.

Also, as SillyString pointed out earlier (as as the petition states) this isn't just about Punk. This is seeking change in admin policy, which concerns the whole team.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I would like everyone to distinguish between:

1. The way this issue has been brought up, and

2. What the issue actually is.

If you think I and the other petitioners should have gone about this a different way, that's fine, but I'd ask that such an opinion not be confused with the actual issue that we are raising.

Also, as SillyString pointed out earlier (as as the petition states) this isn't just about Punk. This is seeking change in admin policy, which concerns the whole team.
Click to expand...
The problem COE is that the bulk of the text is about me. If you believe that that should not be the case, can I recommend withdrawing this petition and rewriting something that better states what you would like the admin to address.

If you do not wish to do that, then we can only interpret that the current wording of the petition is the expressed intent of the 23 signers. I don't believe we can go by anything else unless the petition is withdrawn and a new one submitted.


sidenote - thanks Hileville.
 
You can go by what the petitioners are saying in this thread. The petition may be safely assumed to reflect the default position of petitioners who haven't spoken up in this thread, but plenty have, and while they all agree with the aims of the petition:
We, the undersigned, are petitioning for the removal of Punk D from the admin team, and the adoption of a new policy by the admin team to require administrators to have a nation in The North Pacific, and maintain an appropriate level of interest in our regional security.
Click to expand...
there are various reasons they do so. No single document is going to accurately reflect the intent of each individual petitioner. Likely as not, we don't all agree on every point. It's a big group.
 
I don't think it's that big of a deal if punk is an admin. Sure, he isn't a TNPer, but he has done a good job at what he is doing. I guess letting him be an admin can be similar to a decoration, where he has done such a good job it can be considered an honour, and should be rewarded as such.
 
I am thinking about the axiom "TNP admins should be TNPers." Is it true?

One could also posit the best admin would be a paid tech who doesn't play NS. Competent, independent, reliable, and motivated by profit alone. Unfortunately, we do not have deep pockets and cannot afford to hire someone to do the job. So, we use volunteer help.

It is important that our volunteer help has the maturity to separate gameplay from admin duties, and the trustworthiness to keep sensitive information confidential. The admin team looks for those qualities in an applicant.

When we selected Punk D, we did so with the belief that he was a mature and trustworthy individual. A person of integrity.

But I have been wrong before. It's possible I may not be as good a judge of character as I think I am. In order for me to alter my opinion regarding Punk's suitability for the job, I will need some evidence that he has abused his position. Give me something I can hang my hat on.
 
I would posit that the opinion of the admin team might not be the be-all and end-all of a candidate's suitability to be an admin. The confidence of the admin team does not necessarily entail the confidence of the forum community. I am certainly not suggesting that the community at-large be consulted when admins are appointed - that would be politicizing the position. But I think the policies that I and the other petitioners are recommending are a good rule of thumb for ensuring the confidence of the forum community in any given admin pick.
 
Was Punk involved in the government when he was selected as an admin? Would it be fair to say the decision to select him bore the confidence of the forum community?
 
He was, and I while I can't speak for everyone else, I was confident at the time that Punk would not abuse his position. I'm not suggesting that he never should have been selected - if the policies requested by the petitioners were adopted, it would not bar him from becoming an admin at the time, but would rather result in his removal upon his resignation from the region. Where are you going with this?
 
I'm just looking for clarification. If an otherwise good admin stops playing NS altogether, should our policy be to oust him? Should we remove Hersfold?

I also would like to further discuss the point brought up about one's being invested in regional security. I am unclear as to whether that means something more specific than the characteristics the admin team currently looks for.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I am thinking about the axiom "TNP admins should be TNPers." Is it true?
Click to expand...
I am concerned about this axiom as well. Since this is an OOC forum I won't be 'diplomatic' as I was attempting with the Private RA thread. This petition is complete crap.

OOC administration of an offsite forum should have nothing to do with gameplay in my opinion.

The 'TNP admins should be TNPers' slogan can become very very thin ice for a great number of players here very quickly. Many of the signers of the petition have prominent nations in other regions and yet I am certain that several of them would consider themselves worthy candidates for an admin position if it were offered. I believe that is the height of hypocrisy.

For myself, I applied to be an admin here. I have been told privately and publicly that because of my past actions almost 10 years ago on the NPD boards that I would not be considered. I see that as a perfectly reasonable explanation because those actions directly affected the TNP community. At no point were my actions in other regions called into question or the fact that in other personae I can be a right bastard to friend and foe alike. It was TNP specific.

Likewise, PunkD has never, insofar as I am aware, violated the trust of this community. Even if he decided to leave NS entirely and still was willing to do the laborious (and it is laborious, time consuming and tedious) administrative duties here we should welcome it with open arms.

Take a look around the NS world. It is hard to find good, responsive and active offsite forum admins. Masking lags, forum creation is delayed and regular day-to-day activities take twice as long as they should in many circumstances.

I think Flem and the others are being gracious to be honest. If you don't have an actual OOC reason or a specific IC instance of negligence/betrayal/etc. to oppose PunkD's position as an admin then just let it go.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I agree, could you stop picking petty fights, blue wolf? It's unbecoming.
Click to expand...
And yet my question, and point, remains unaddressed. How very convenient.

My point being that, in the past, we never used to appoint people who were no longer involved in TNP as Admins. We have plenty of talented and willing members who could be Admin, such as the two players who that were just appointed as Global Mods, and yet the Admin Team, for some reason, thinks its much more appropriate to pick people from outside the region. I believe that shows a real lack of trust by certain members of the Admin Team.

So I ask once again, how many non-TNP admins have we ever had?
 
We did not "pick a admin from outside the region". PunkD was appointed on July 29th 2013, at which time he was actively involved in the political side of TNP life. The issue being raised is whether his retirement from that side of our community life is sufficient reason for him to be REMOVED as admin.

I suggest you look at the thread announcing his appointment last year. From it you will see that there were those, namely Sanctaria, SillyString, COE, Kiwi who objected to his appointment the moment it was announced.

This was long before he retired from political involvement in TNP.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Democratic Donkeys:
I agree, could you stop picking petty fights, blue wolf? It's unbecoming.
Click to expand...
And yet my question, and point, remains unaddressed. How very convenient.

My point being that, in the past, we never used to appoint people who were no longer involved in TNP as Admins. We have plenty of talented and willing members who could be Admin, such as the two players who that were just appointed as Global Mods, and yet the Admin Team, for some reason, thinks its much more appropriate to pick people from outside the region. I believe that shows a real lack of trust by certain members of the Admin Team.

So I ask once again, how many non-TNP admins have we ever had?
Click to expand...
I'll answer this by saying Hersfold retired from NationStates on February 28, 2007. Today is April 2, 2014.

The Hersfold account is still an admin on our boards.

We have also had Eluvatar during his bouts of inactivity as an admin on these boards. At the time he was not involved in TNP and yet had admin access. This was pointed out to Silly String earlier.

Also I was not appointed to this position when I was not involved in TNP. I was appointed while I was involved in TNP and thus to answer this, I do not believe there has ever been an appointment to TNP adminship of a person who was "no longer involved in TNP" at the time of their appointment.

I believe what your question is really asking is, when have we ever had an active admin who was not also at least a citizen of TNP because we presently have a non-TNP admin using the definition of the petition but that person does not appear in this petition for whatever reason.

Answering that question, I don't believe we have had that. Perhaps at some point in Tresville's career he may have been active admin but inactive from a citizenship standpoint, but I'm not recalling a situation where an active admin was not also an active member of TNP - most retire and leave behind their admin duties.

I question what people are saying a "TNPer" is but we'll have to agree to disagree. Using the petition's definition Hersfold & Eluvatar would answer your question.

EDIT: struck the comment that I believe is incorrect
 
Flem:
We did not "pick a admin from outside the region". PunkD was appointed on July 29th 2013, at which time he was actively involved in the political side of TNP life.
Click to expand...

You've chosen to continue have him as admin, even though he's no longer associated with TNP in any way except as an Admin. So you've picked him over other qualified TNPers who could do an equally as good job.

I'll answer this by saying Hersfold retired from NationStates on February 28, 2007. Today is April 2, 2014.

The Hersfold account is still an admin on our boards.
Click to expand...

Yes, because that's the Root Admin account. >_<
 
Grosse, Elu and I all have the password to the Hersfold account.

We could change the root admin password right now to cut Brett (the player behind Hersfold) out of the loop.

We made a promise long ago that we would not do that, and we have stuck to it. By the direction of your argument, are you suggesting that the he should be prevented access to the forum account hersfold, since he is not a "true TNPer" any more?
 
flemingovia:
Grosse, Elu and I all have the password to the Hersfold account.

We could change the root admin password right now to cut Brett (the player behind Hersfold) out of the loop.

We made a promise long ago that we would not do that, and we have stuck to it. By the direction of your argument, are you suggesting that the he should be prevented access to the forum account hersfold, since he is not a "true TNPer" any more?
Click to expand...
And I wouldn't object to Hersfold not have admin access anymore if he agreed to it, which I'm sure he probably might. The only problem, and both you and I are well aware of it Flem, is when a certain Admin goes on a power trip and it needs to be fixed by Hersfold himself.

However, talking about the Root Admin account and talking about an appointed Admin are just slightly, slightly entirely different and the factors regarding the two are just a little massively dissimilar.

punk d:
BW - You did not ask for a qualifier. You asked for an example.
Click to expand...

I'll be sure to define my values next time.
 
Blue Wolf II:
The only problem, and both you and I are well aware of it Flem, is when a certain Admin goes on a power trip and it needs to be fixed by Hersfold himself.
Click to expand...
If any one of the four root admins went on a power trip, and did not change the Hersfold account password, it would not need Hersfold to stop them. Any one of us could do it.

If any one of the four root admins went on a power trip, and changed the Hersfold account password, none of us, including Hersfold, could stop them.

The only thing we could do in the latter instance is move forums.


And the way this forum is set up, there is no functional difference between root and other admins. the only difference is access to the Hersfold account which, speaking personally, I have not used in years and years.

The admins work as a team and generally root admins do not pull rank.
 
Blue Wolf, if I may ask you a question or two - what have the admins done wrong in the performance of their duties in your opinion?

If I was a good standing member of the RA, well let's change the focus from me. If an admin was an upstanding member of the RA, do you believe that is sufficient interest in TNP? If not, why not?
 
Great Bights Mum:
I'm just looking for clarification. If an otherwise good admin stops playing NS altogether, should our policy be to oust him? Should we remove Hersfold?
Click to expand...
punk d:
Blue Wolf II:
So I ask once again, how many non-TNP admins have we ever had?
Click to expand...
I'll answer this by saying Hersfold retired from NationStates on February 28, 2007. Today is April 2, 2014.

The Hersfold account is still an admin on our boards.

We have also had Eluvatar during his bouts of inactivity as an admin on these boards. At the time he was not involved in TNP and yet had admin access. This was pointed out to Silly String earlier.
Click to expand...
flemingovia:
Grosse, Elu and I all have the password to the Hersfold account.

We could change the root admin password right now to cut Brett (the player behind Hersfold) out of the loop.

We made a promise long ago that we would not do that, and we have stuck to it. By the direction of your argument, are you suggesting that the he should be prevented access to the forum account hersfold, since he is not a "true TNPer" any more?
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out several times already, there is a massive, monumental, extreme, important difference between an admin who is not involved in NationStates anymore, and an admin who plays NationStates but does not choose to play as a TNPer. The first is emphasizing their continued commitment to the community by supporting a forum for a game they no longer play, and the other is a potential security risk. We have and have had admins who don't play NS anymore. No one yet has given an example of an admin who had time to play NS but chose to spend it on other regions instead of ours. I believe this is without precedent. I think comparisons to Elu, Hersfold, etc are not useful ones.
 
I still think the 'burden' of proof lies in those who think that Punk'D remaining as an admin in this forum will jeopardise the security of TNP, to prove that it is such.
 
It's not so much that his continued presence jeopardizes our security. But consider this.

1. Do potential motivations to abuse his admin position exist? Yes (outside commitments)
2. If he decided to, would he be caught? Almost certainly not
3. Even if he were caught, would he suffer any in-game repercussions? No

I don't know Punk very well. Neither do a lot of people in this community, and neither will anyone else who ever joins this community, because Punk is not involved in it. The admins trust him, but that doesn't entail the trust of the community, and while I'm certainly not accusing Punk of anything, I think this situation is problematic.
 
I must admit it was a bit disappointing to learn he was only retired in-game for TNP but kept active in-game account elsewhere.

But still I think having him is great.

I understand both parts, but I'm no signing this petition.
 
and the other is a potential security risk
Click to expand...

If I have learned one thing in NS it is that there are very few people who are not potential security risks. I have been betrayed by people I have trusted implicitly and pleasantly surprised by some people I expected to shaft me at the earliest opportunity.

As the "what is your primary region" thread in OOC shows, there are a number of people here who do not consider TNP their "first" region. Some of them might, in a conflict of interest, choose to side with another region. That is the reality of cosmopolitan life.

Adminship is about trust and managing risk. PunkD has been an administrator now for over eight months. We can speculate and whisper all we like, but seriously - in those eight months has there been any evidence that he has, or intends to, betray the trust we put in him as an administrator?
 
Blue Wolf II:
Democratic Donkeys:
I agree, could you stop picking petty fights, blue wolf? It's unbecoming.
Click to expand...
And yet my question, and point, remains unaddressed. How very convenient.

My point being that, in the past, we never used to appoint people who were no longer involved in TNP as Admins. We have plenty of talented and willing members who could be Admin, such as the two players who that were just appointed as Global Mods, and yet the Admin Team, for some reason, thinks its much more appropriate to pick people from outside the region. I believe that shows a real lack of trust by certain members of the Admin Team.

So I ask once again, how many non-TNP admins have we ever had?
Click to expand...
I do agree with your statement. I believe that administration not affiliated with TNP is not the best idea. While on a case to case basis of course this is not necessarily a malicious weakness of our region, no. However this policy is not currently in the right mindset to safeguard one of the largest bastions of democracy in the NS world.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
It's not so much that his continued presence jeopardizes our security. But consider this.

1. Do potential motivations to abuse his admin position exist? Yes (outside commitments)
2. If he decided to, would he be caught? Almost certainly not
3. Even if he were caught, would he suffer any in-game repercussions? No
Click to expand...
I think many folks know me well. I've been around quite awhile. I'm one of the old farts. The newer folks certainly don't know me well at all, but they may not know many of the old farty admins.

Further, as Flem said there are a number of folks who have extra-regional affiliations. And lastly, if the petitioners asked me today to resign my citizenship from TSP, let go of LRI, and make TNP my only base of operations I'd do so without hesitation.

Repeat - without hesitation.

What that means is that I place TNP first and when I became admin in July, I would not have said TNP is my primary affiliation, TWP was at the time. I could have asked to be admin there (and still could) and probably given the role. I admin another board that is run by the root of TWP (The Meritocracy for those interested). I really do believe the petitioners have no idea of how important TNP is to me and had they asked they would have found out. But, I want to make this crystal clear for all so you know how much I value the TNP community even those who believe me to be a risk or uninterested in TNP's security or whatever else has been said.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Great Bights Mum:
I'm just looking for clarification. If an otherwise good admin stops playing NS altogether, should our policy be to oust him? Should we remove Hersfold?
Click to expand...
punk d:
Blue Wolf II:
So I ask once again, how many non-TNP admins have we ever had?
Click to expand...
I'll answer this by saying Hersfold retired from NationStates on February 28, 2007. Today is April 2, 2014.

The Hersfold account is still an admin on our boards.

We have also had Eluvatar during his bouts of inactivity as an admin on these boards. At the time he was not involved in TNP and yet had admin access. This was pointed out to Silly String earlier.
Click to expand...
flemingovia:
Grosse, Elu and I all have the password to the Hersfold account.

We could change the root admin password right now to cut Brett (the player behind Hersfold) out of the loop.

We made a promise long ago that we would not do that, and we have stuck to it. By the direction of your argument, are you suggesting that the he should be prevented access to the forum account hersfold, since he is not a "true TNPer" any more?
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out several times already, there is a massive, monumental, extreme, important difference between an admin who is not involved in NationStates anymore, and an admin who plays NationStates but does not choose to play as a TNPer. The first is emphasizing their continued commitment to the community by supporting a forum for a game they no longer play, and the other is a potential security risk. We have and have had admins who don't play NS anymore. No one yet has given an example of an admin who had time to play NS but chose to spend it on other regions instead of ours. I believe this is without precedent. I think comparisons to Elu, Hersfold, etc are not useful ones.
Click to expand...
As I consider the policy change, I just need to understand what the petitioners want it changed to. What I am hearing so far is that the petitioners would like to see:

Admins must be TNPers or must not play NS.

If an admin ceases to be considered a TNPer by _____________, but still plays NS, then he shall be promptly removed.

Please let me know if I am missing something.
 
Mum, the gist of it is that if an admin has in-game commitments elsewhere, then their in-game commitments to TNP must be non-negligible. Your summary seems about right.

And lastly, if the petitioners asked me today to resign my citizenship from TSP, let go of LRI, and make TNP my only base of operations I'd do so without hesitation.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for the rest, but this would satisfy me.
 
I love LRI, but I did it for fun to add an element to the game that doesn't exist today but it is not as important to me as TNP. The guys I've worked with there are awesome but if I was forced to make a choice, it is not a difficult one.

[removed]
 
One other request in addition to the one previously posted for concrete evidence about Punk D. It would also be helpful if the admin could also be provided with concrete evidence that documents when the lack of citizenship has actually posed a threat to these forums and this forum community, and where the threat was allowed to persist.

When there had been an actual threat in the past, the admin team took prompt action, but in those instances, the threat was from a forum user who was a voter or a citizen. I can't think of any instance where that was the case for a non-citizen or a non-voter (depending on the era). You can supply such evidence to any admin by PM, and we'll look at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top