This is an age old problem.
Maybe we should take Plato's (Socrates'?) approach. The mob don't know what's good for them, they only want to be pandered to. An admin who does what the mob wants, regardless of what is actually good for them, isn't a good admin. In the same way that a cook panders to people by giving them sweet food to eat, while a doctor tells them that its bad for them and takes away the sweets. The doctor is unpopular, but is doing what is good for people, not what they want.
In which case, how do we ensure that the admin is an expert, and not just a panderer? We need to decide what the expertise of an admin is, or should be. What knowledge do they need in order to be an expert, or admin, rather than just a rhetorician?
I think the only answer is admin classes. We need to decide, through dialectic method, what qualities are needed to be such an expert, and then identify who has those qualities. That person can then choose other people who have those qualities, or open a school of adminship, and teach people how to be an admin.
Or maybe we should go fully democratic? The players have a right to vote on every rule and decision made! We can make a bill of rights, the foremost being 'The Right To Play cRPG'.
Sure, we can elect admins to enforce those rights. But those admins should be accountable, and every decision they make should be completely transparent! If the majority of players feel that an admin is not representing their desire to play cRPG in their own particular way, the admin is voted out.
But still, we have to reach a consensus on what makes a good admin.
Just some suggestions for you.
