Admin Requests

[img=200,300]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/129/410/its%20a%20trap%20fixedv%20.jpg[/img]
 
[img=200,300]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/129/410/its%20a%20trap%20fixedv%20.jpg[/img]
 
[AG Hat on]
Anyone who is presently an Assistant Attorney General please remove their masking.

[Admin hat on]
Will get on it

... and done. Iro, Mal, and Belschaft reduced back to RA members.
 
punk d:
Are you still having this issue? I am not able to replicate it.
Click to expand...

flemingovia:
I cannot see the problem you report either.
Click to expand...

I can access that thread now, but the block was triggered by the profanity filtering system at a library whereas the internet cafe I'm in now doesn't have that restriction - library's closed today so I won't know until tomorrow if it is still occurring, I shall let you know.

Obviously I'm a little disappointed as I was unable to review the debate on the final day and switch my vote over - but I appreciate the admin's willing assistance, particularly as the ads is an aspect of zetaboards they have little control over, they showed a reallly positive attitude. :hug:
 
May I be remasked as Vice Delegate, thanks. Kiwi would need the appropriate remasking then.

Thanks!
 
Due to recent changes in law, all RA applicants will now be subject to a security evaluation by the vice delegate. Please don't remask RA applicants until:

1. I've conditionally admitted
2. They've been evaluated by the VD (who will post in the application thread)
3. You've checked their IP as usual

Exception: if the VD has not posted within three days of their application, and they've met the other criteria above, they can be remasked.

EDIT: The Rustlands applied before the new law was implemented, so he will be the last applicant admitted under the old policies.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Due to recent changes in law, all RA applicants will now be subject to a security evaluation by the vice delegate. Please don't remask RA applicants until:

1. I've conditionally admitted
2. They've been evaluated by the VD (who will post in the application thread)
3. You've checked their IP as usual

Exception: if the VD has not posted within three days of their application, and they've met the other criteria above, they can be remasked.
Click to expand...
Since there are actually two steps and a time limit, who is keeping track of such things? I would hope the Speaker would then track the 3 day limit, since I'm assuming the default will become the VD simply *not* posting. As admin I would want to be sure I was supposed to be adding people, but not wait *too* long.

Perhaps you could switch steps 1 and 2? Not post the conditional admittance until the 3 days or VD has posted?

Apologies if it's just me anticipating issues with this one...
 
I've not reviewed the new changes, but until now, the Speaker or their designee has had the responsibility of letting admin know when someone is admitted or removed from the RA, and to keep things easier for the admin, that should be the approach going forward. Any security checks by admin would have to be reported to the Speaker, right?, so let the Speaker continue to be the gatekeeper.
 
Grosse, of late admins have been checking the membership applications threads regularly to IP check applicants and remask new members. I have been "conditionally admitting" new applicants so that they can be IP checked and remasked in one go, to make it simpler for admins (as opposed to IP check, then admission, then remasking).

The criteria I posted above don't have to be completed in any particular order, but they do need to all be completed before an applicant is remasked. I can keep track of the three-day time limit. So let's do it this way:

If you see that a member has been conditionally admitted AND the VD has posted saying they're not a security threat, IP check and remask as you've been doing. If you see they've applied, but both those things aren't done, IP check them as normal, but don't remask - I will post here when they're admitted so you can remask them.

Will that work?

EDIT:
Former English Colony:
I would hope the Speaker would then track the 3 day limit, since I'm assuming the default will become the VD simply *not* posting.
Click to expand...
The default will be the Vice Delegate posting promptly to say that they are not a security threat. I do not expect many applicants to have to wait the full three days before being admitted - the time limit is there so that if the VD goes poof, we can still admit new members while we're waiting for a special election. That being said, if we do it the way I've laid out in this post, you won't have to worry about the three day limit - just don't remask immediately unless you see a post from the VD in the thread. In those cases, just IP check them, and I'll post in the admin request thread when they are to be remasked.

Sanctaria has subscribed to the application thread, and I am confident he will be on top of this.
 
My masking needs changing to the Security Council mask.

Edit: I should also retain NPA forum permissions as well.
 
I just oathed myself (is that a euphemism for something?) and I'm set to go to Communications Ministrate.
 
cmhguy88 masked to RA member.

Iro masked as Cabinet.

EDIT: Seeing Lennart's oath - he too has been masked as cabinet member.
 
To what extent do I have the power to request subforums/masking? I might be needing some in the future... :adn:

Also, Communications needs to be moved the hell out of Internal Affairs.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I will post here when they're admitted so you can remask them.
Click to expand...
You are the final word on remasking. I don't think admin should necessarily have to bother looking for a VD yes or no. And some of what you wrote read that way. Admin can still post if people have passed the security check, but unless Speaker says "they can be remasked", they will not be processed.

Is that what you were saying?
 
Iro:
To what extent do I have the power to request subforums/masking? I might be needing some in the future... :adn:

Also, Communications needs to be moved the hell out of Internal Affairs.
Click to expand...
I believe delegate has that power within governmental areas, so if the delegate agrees with you you're good to go.
 
Former English Colony:
Crushing Our Enemies:
I will post here when they're admitted so you can remask them.
Click to expand...
You are the final word on remasking. I don't think admin should necessarily have to bother looking for a VD yes or no. And some of what you wrote read that way. Admin can still post if people have passed the security check, but unless Speaker says "they can be remasked", they will not be processed.

Is that what you were saying?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. I would really like for admins to look for a VD check, and if they see that + a conditional admission from me, IP check and remask. If they only see one or neither, IP check and wait for a notification from me to remask.

We implemented conditional acceptance a while back so that IPs could be checked and members could be remasked in one step. When I suggested that conditional admittance be abolished a while back, admins objected because this creates more work. If you want to keep conditional admittance, then you have to look for a VD yes or no before remasking, because I will be conditionally admitting people pending *2* security checks now, and if you remask without a VD check, you've broken the law.

If looking for conditional acceptance and a VD check is too complicated, then we'll have to go back to the system of IP checking and remasking in separate steps. In other words, no conditional admittance - just post when you IP check a member, and remask when I say "<member>, welcome to the RA!" in the application thread.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
If looking for conditional acceptance and a VD check is too complicated, then we'll have to go back to the system of IP checking and remasking in separate steps. In other words, no conditional admittance - just post when you IP check a member, and remask when I say "<member>, welcome to the RA!" in the application thread.
Click to expand...
Is this your preferred option, then?
 
It is not reasonable to expect each admin to review the application thread to see if X has all the elements in place for remasking into the RA. That's not the admin's job, no matter how many of us there are. I'd much prefer to see the admin do what only they can do (IP and account checks and information in the admin only areas) and leave the timing of the remask to the Speaker who tells us that X can be remasked. (After all, only the Speaker can tell admin when someone needs to be remasked due to their removal from the RA, and which group the removed member goes into. Same principle.)
 
Grosse, tracking the timing will be handled by the Speaker's office. Admins will only be responsible for looking for two posts - one conditionally admitting the applicant, and one confirming the applicant passes a security check. If both of those don't exist, they should be IP checked but not remasked.

I'm not sure I see how this is a vast complication over the previous system, which required admins to look for one post - that conditionally admitting the applicant. If it didn't exist, you all IP checked and didn't remask until formally accepted by the speaker.

There are three possible paths here:

1) Applicant applies, VD checks, admin checks, (or admin and then VD), speaker admits, speaker posts in admin thread, admin remasks (or admin sees the admittance and masks on their own, as has happened consistently over the past several months).
2) Applicant applies, VD checks, speaker conditionally admits (or speaker and then vd), admin checks and remasks.
3) Applicant applies, speaker conditionally admits, VD doesn't check, admin checks, after three days speaker posts in admin thread, admin remasks.

This has not been a problem in the past, and as COE pointed out, the conditional acceptance was introduced and retained because members of the admin team stated that being able to sec-check and remask in one go reduced their workload. Under the new system, no matter what, sometimes the check and the remasking are going to be split up... but what you seem to be asking for is for it to always be split up, requiring two admin actions to take care of. How does that decrease your workload at all? The path with the shortest number of steps is #2, not #1.

On another note, GanjaFarmer's TNP nation has CTE'd, and they should be remasked as a former citizen.
 
The basic thing we would like is that when the Speaker says "conditionally admitted" now, the VD requirement is done with. Either they have posted their okay or 3 days have passed. If that is satisfied, then we're all good. What we don't want is Speaker saying "okay" before the VD requirement is met. Essentially (from an admin POV), making it exactly the same as before. :P
 
The reason that is not ideal is that conditional admittance serves as quick and informative feedback on an application, reassuring the applicant that they are being processed. Having to wait for the vice delegate to evaluate them before conditionally admitting could be confusing to the applicant (because they won't be expecting security checks, since they weren't conditionally admitted), and lengthens the amount of time between when they apply and when they get feedback. Also, it is proper that the Speaker is the first to post regarding their application, since the Speaker's Office is in charge of the entire process.

I honestly don't understand the objections of administrators to looking for a VD check before remasking. It takes, at most, a few extra seconds to scroll through the most recent posts in the thread, and with five active administrators on the team now, I don't think that is too much of a burden on administrative convenience, considering the benefits to user experience.
 
Sorry to interrupt your convo. It seems like a good one!

Could S1E please be remasked as an NPA Soldier? Thank you.
 
Funkadelia has missed 4 consecutive legislative votes, and has not voted in over 20 days. They are hereby removed from the RA, and from their position as TNP Justice. :\
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top