- General
-
Ideas
Job Authorizations
I know that job authorizations have been abolished for good reason. But today, we're far too dependent on the people in charge, which increases the workload that wasn't necessary in the first place. Let me explain:
Let's take the Backstory Leader as an example: he can use his permissions to approve or reject a backstory. In this case, an message is sent. However, he or she is also responsible for texts and profile photos. When Leaders (MoM & HM) are not logged in, no one can make these changes. But it's up to the Backstory Leader to ensure that all users have the right profile.
Let's also take the example of the Head of House: he often manages several teams, but has to check the veracity of his candidates' declarations. However, he is obliged to consult Leaders to obtain IP addresses and thus verify this information.
It's understandable for a student job to have to ask the Leaders for this information. But it's much less justifiable for jobs that aren't governed by the same rules. It all depends on people's ability to fully assume their responsibilities.
These are just a few examples among many, but in the end, it slows us all down and adds a considerable workload for the leaders. And although it's rare, it can happen that leaders are absent. Since we've lost most of the permissions linked to our positions, we can't take over. And yet, the goal of the team of administrators was to be able to relieve the leaders and take over in their absence.
I understand that you don't want to give all the permissions back to everyone. That's why I'd like to put forward an idea.
Why not detach the permissions linked to positions and allow leaders to assign certain specific permissions to people according to their responsibilities?
Let me explain:
I don't know if it's technically feasible, but it would allow people other than leaders to perform certain tasks.
When leaders recruit someone, a drop-down list could appear, allowing them to define the appropriate permissions for that position. In this way, each person could carry out his or her job from A to Z without having to take on unnecessary permissions.
For example, only the Prefect Leader could have the power to ban a user in agreement with the leaders. If a problem were to arise one day in the absence of a leader, only the Backstory Leader could modify profiles. HoH could have access to IP addresses.
Each position would thus have the necessary permissions to carry out its missions, in accordance with the degree of trust granted when joining the team of administrators.
Thank you for taking the time to read it.
Customer support service by UserEcho
Oh, I respectfully disagree with that perspective. Such differences in management can indeed lead to challenges.
Having worked in management for many years, I have observed a gradual reduction in my workload with each change to the rights.
Previously, I would dedicate several hours each day to site-related tasks. However, my current involvement is significantly less, amounting to approximately 1-2 hours per week.
In my opinion, it is acceptable for the majority of the work to be handled by the MoM/HM. It appears that management is generally not considered trustworthy enough to handle certain responsibilities.
As a member of management, I believe it is important to focus on tasks that are essential to the role and that bring personal enjoyment. and not more.
As long as the MoM/HM do not advocate for significantly more rights for management, it can be assumed that they are willing to undertake this additional work.
In the event of an absolute emergency and the absence of a response from the MoM/HM, it may be necessary to directly contact the authorities. After all, cybercrime is a serious offense that should be addressed by law enforcement in most countries.
Although it may initially sound harsh, the recent policies implemented by website operators leave little room for alternative responses.
Fewer rights entail less responsibility, reduced workload, and diminished commitment.
Granting additional rights to individuals may not be beneficial and could potentially lead to decreased motivation. Moreover, it could result in shifting the problem to a different area.
I hear what you're saying, and I understand that fewer responsibilities mean more time for other things. However, I don't share your perspective either.
The site administration team (MoM, HM, HoH, Management Team) inevitably requires time; otherwise, why would these roles be paid more than other staff positions (such as Professors and RC)?
In this respect, I find it absurd, though I recognize that there have been issues in the past. However, in your work as Backstory Leader, or mine as HoH, there are things we could do without asking the Leader because it becomes a waste of time. For example, you can no longer issue salaries for your team, while I, as HoH, can. I can only slightly modify my club topics, whereas you have the ability to do so.
I lose a lot of time sending messages to my leaders to get them to handle very simple tasks, such as pinning a topic.
I understand your point of view as well: as long as the leaders aren’t complaining, it likely means they're okay with it. But in reality, they probably won’t tell you they don’t have time to do some tasks because they have no choice but to complete them. Besides, people rarely complain in general.
You mention the possibility of involving the authorities, but I'm unsure who you’re referring to. The police? Indeed, it can be useful to contact them depending on the situation, but I hadn’t gone that far in my example. I was simply trying to indicate that if someone posts a message like “Big *****” or other obscene content, there’s not much they can do. If you meant "authorities" as in Mugs, I'd like to remind you that we are an international group and that it's common for us to be unavailable at the same time due to work, or because we're asleep. But an obscene message has no place on a profile, and not being able to address it immediately does leave an issue.
I’m not saying the problem didn’t exist before, but simply that we could reduce the likelihood of many people seeing this kind of message.
As a member of the site management team, it’s our duty to protect the younger users.
Finally, you wrote: "Fewer rights entail less responsibility, reduced workload, and diminished commitment."
I don’t mean to sound harsh, and I truly don’t want to come across as condescending. But if you want less engagement or fewer responsibilities, then perhaps being part of the management team isn’t for you.
We all have different sites. Matching authorisations to responsibilities rather than colour would demonstrate confidence in the team and show that they are also important to the site. This would allow Leaders to concentrate on their tasks and on more important issues.
Each could manage their site independently.