Basically you try to give the community the possibility to remove admins who annoy most of the members really badly and make them rage.
This is a good thing, but - as always, concerning punishment of deeds which can't be told objectively, like teamkilling, rape in relationships (got an actual case here in Germany) and so on - if you make it too hard to punish someone, the system is useless, if you make it too easy, it can be abused easily.
So I suggest the following changes:
- actually you don't need an amount of users posting their support for a vote. The only reason I could think of to justify this would be to limit the vote topics overall, but this can be done with a 30-days-timelimit.
- Nonetheless the starter of a voting needs a good reason to start such a topic. I would say you always need as much evidence as possible. The server log is the most important part, of course, but screenshots or even movies do fine, too. If other users had problems with the same admin WITHIN THE LAST 30 DAYS, they are allowed to post their accusation, too. But they NEED screenshots or movies to prove it, a simple "Yeah, he banned me for no reason, too!" doesn't help anything. The admin has one answering post per accusation post.
- Votes need absolute majority to succeed.
- If the first vote succeeds, the admin is put on probation. Probation lasts 30 days.
- If admins under probation are nominated again (at the end of their probation), you need 71% of votes to remove him definitely.
- If the vote fails, the admin is rehabilitated fully. Though the gets a "prior conviction" point. Those points last for a year (360 days).
- Every prior conviction point reduces the needed percentage to remove the admin under probation by 10%.
With this system it's easier for people to actually get their chance on a vote, as "loners" without clanmates and so on could be treated unfairly, too. And he doesn't have a dozen clanmates who trigger a vote immediately. On the other hand an admin must behave like an asshole over some longer time to get removed. If he sees that the community isn't pleased with his administration, he has got a chance to change it. Everyone deserves a chance.
If an admin lost his rights, he can apply after another 30 days again. I don't know what he has to do to get "trial-admin" status again, perhaps win a vote or something like that. Doesn't matter now, though, as with the implementation of my suggestion we would have fired admins in 30 days earliest. And yes, it's intended that removing an admin takes longer than it currently does. If things go bad, and you are really unlucky and a bit of a troll (like wookie
) you can be removed within 3 days!!!
Such a "fear" of losing admin rights could limit admins in doing their job.
Please either tell your opinion about my suggestion, by either supporting or declining it, or feel free to suggest some changes or even set up a completely new system!
I hope I do NOT get muted by the mods for posting this topic now, as it clearly belongs into this forum, and is meant seriously and has the purpose of helping and improving things. I am not trolling or fucking around. So please don't just follow some rules blindly, I am quite confident you are capable of recognizing exceptions.
