[Split from Reliant thread] Busy Admins => More Admins?

[Bormiar]

As per my post above, the "player -> Tech Modling -> Admin" route I think is not going to happen again. The "player -> Mod -> Tech Modling -> Admin" route sounds much more realistic to me, and where I would suggest people focus their thoughts. If know you someone with the technical skills and interest in helping the site, nominate them. Sure, some might not be suitable for Mod for various reasons, personality included, but bear in mind there's a wide range of personalities on the mod team already.

Alright then, if you insist. There's a few players off the top of my head who would make both good mods and good technical assistants. That being said, they may still reject on the grounds that they don't want to be moderators, and I still think you guys should consider an official pathway.

As for financials, NationStates is a big site with very minimal advertisements and no subscription features or anything like that. I could see it being possible to hire a consultant to help out occasionally, but we're a relatively small and very weird group of players, and the much larger group of gameside players who answer issues and write factbooks and such seems to be growing. Therefore, I don't think we're Max's priority even if we're the most vocal.

[Wallenburg]

There was slightly more (and less) to it - the name was actually sold to the other guys, and there was some expectation of oversight that never materialized. NS1 was left intact, but the forums moved to the new guys, who wrecked that too. Our mods were downgraded and new mods were handed to us without any vetting on our part. They too were disasters.

I believe the phrase "never again" was spoken more than once.

There's a subtle difference between selling control of NS, surrendering direction over its development, and hiring someone who works as an assistant to supplement the existing team.

I also do not expect that hiring a full or part time developer of NS is financially feasible, but your response is an incredibly straw man refutation.

Luca says it better than I could have. Don't equivocate between hiring a professional to supplement your workflow and literally selling out to Jolt.

[Gondor and of Arnor]

Maybe the Mod's and Admin's should try giving a crap about what the NS community want's and making a Tech Modling to Admin Pathway.

[Roavin]

The mod -> admin route takes care of the trust issue, but there is something to be said for a certain kind of personality needed for a mod that is not applicable to admin (and vice-versa), so going that route does introduce the issue of a possibly higher bar than before. Note that I don't mean that these personality traits are mutually exclusive (and in fact I'd say there is a good deal of overlap), but they're not the same.

I don't know what the NS test deployment has, but if it doesn't have all the user data that the main deployment has, there is a possibility for a stepping stone there without exposing all the user data. Furthermore, there are techy types that may have done administrative/moderator work in several off-site places, which (while not the same level as the whole NS site) could be used as a plus point for consideration.

Hiring a developer has the issue of costs (of course) but also lack of community engagement and, particularly on NS, knowledge of and familiarity with all these crazy emergent subcultures. This isn't an insurmountable hurdle, but it is a hurdle nonetheless that has to be considered.

Regarding the code itself, IRL I work on a codebase totalling a few million lines of code (mostly C++, some C#) that was originally started in 1994, when I was in second grade, and I've had the pleasure of ripping into subsystems that were written back when I was still in primary school. I'd say, from my experience, that full-on handholding is probably not even the best approach to get somebody acquainted; rather, give them a task to get started, let them explore a bit, have a place where questions can be answered (Sedge mentioned that all admins, active and not, are already connected via Discord, which means even the above-mentioned Salusa could chip in asynchronously), and use code reviews before deploying. This all applies regardless of whether the individual is a tech modling, hired developer, or full admin.

And last but not least, if activity issues are temporary IRL-induced issues, then ... honestly, we can just wait. It's frustrating (and trust me I'd know, given the whole Reliant saga), but it's manageable, and it's better and safer than panic-slinging somebody into an admin or tech-modling or whatever position on short notice without due diligence (not that I think NS staff would do that, this is more in response to others)

[Bormiar]

And last but not least, if activity issues are temporary IRL-induced issues, then ... honestly, we can just wait. It's frustrating (and trust me I'd know, given the whole Reliant saga), but it's manageable, and it's better and safer than panic-slinging somebody into an admin or tech-modling or whatever position on short notice without due diligence (not that I think NS staff would do that, this is more in response to others)

Relevant / New:

As we're 9 months down the line from this post - it feels appropriate to enquire as to how work on the new forums is progressing?

Painfully, miserably slowly. Admin time has been more sparse than usual lately due to pesky IRL obligations and interference.

This could be an isolated incident.

(doesn't change the fact more admins would be nice for scenarios like these)

[Socio Polor]

I just wanted to add here since no one seems to have brought it up, but back in 2005 during the site's 3rd anniversary, an admin quiz was posted on the News page where anyone with technical skills could just apply. If more admins are needed, would it be possible for another admin quiz or something similar to be made, or is that no longer done? Just my quick note here on this thread.

[Sedgistan]

That's been floated before both publicly and internally. It's not so simple as having a quiz, so I would not expect that to be repeated. However, as alluded to earlier in this thread, we are looking at options for increasing admin presence on the team, and discussions are underway internally. When there's something to say on that (which I hope is soon™) we will communicate it.

[Socio Polor]

That's been floated before both publicly and internally. It's not so simple as having a quiz, so I would not expect that to be repeated. However, as alluded to earlier in this thread, we are looking at options for increasing admin presence on the team, and discussions are underway internally. When there's something to say on that (which I hope is soon™) we will communicate it.

Ok! (Wishes that there was a thumb-up emoji available)

[Flanderlion]

I still think increased monetisation in recruitment (and allowing ability to pay for a better rate limit) would solve two birds with one stone. Money to pay for a part time pro who just does the grunt work for the feature lists admins and dev managers have made.

Stamps and TGs are too cheap at present, and too many are being sent. API should be occasional and targetted (or paid and targetted), but the trade off should either be time (manual recruitment) or money to skip the time.

[Vylixan]

I'm not opposed to increased monetisation, if it results in NS getting better I'm willing to throw money at it. Just don't make it unfair for people that can't spend money on NS.

[Unibot III]

I admittedly don’t know where to put this comment, I don’t want to gravedig. But I had a thought I wanted to put out to Sedge & others:

While I know Sedge especially is keen on the Frontier proposal over something like a Venter proposal because it means porting activity directly into UCRs over new GCRs, I was wondering if there was a significant difference in terms of coding hours and investment that would go into a Venter model versus a Frontier model? Seems to me, it would be a similar effort as what went into creating Osi/Balder but with the ‘customizable’ population stream.

I bring this up because if admins are stretched thin, it may be worth proceeding with changes that could be done more easily/quickly that would essentially “shake up” NSGP.

The Frontier plan and the Venter proposals are not mutually exclusive. You could still pursue one first within the year, with the aim of developing the Frontier proposal over a longer time period when you have the staff and the availability.

I think getting a big change out the door quicker would be beneficial for the game given the current environment, especially if a more holistic change may be 1-2…3 years out?

[Racoda]

-snip-

I honestly fail to see how this is relevant to the thread...

[Unibot III]

-snip-

I honestly fail to see how this is relevant to the thread...

Management of admin time, given lack of admin availability.

That’s all.

Prioritizing changes that can be rolled out quickly to have an impact on NSGP in the medium term, rather than stalled development on long term priorities that are admin-intensive.

[Sedgistan]

[Free Algerstonia]

I'm not opposed to increased monetisation, if it results in NS getting better I'm willing to throw money at it. Just don't make it unfair for people that can't spend money on NS.

this is not the way, this is the exact model that every gaming company begins as and inevitably becomes either freemium or pay-to-win. this is a horrible idea.

[Hulldom]

On the contrary here (and feel free to split this off or move this somewhere, I believe the discussion about a new campaigning system has been had/is being had elsewhere), I don’t think the price of stamps should be increased or, if they are, there should be some sort of mechanism wherein WA campaigners can pay less for stamps (I imagine this wouldn’t be too hard to implement, perhaps just have a spot in the store where you have to drop a link to get the discount).

I don’t buy stamps all that often, more so when I was founding a UCR and I completely agree that recruitment should probably be more expensive (especially in the future context of F/S!), but I buy them in bulk when I do. A $20 expense is much different from a $40 expense in my current financial state, and purely selfishly, I should not be dissuaded from doing something I quite enjoy on this game (the WA) when I do not have the time for manual campaigning simply because the cost of stamps is higher.

Why would I be dissuaded? Very simple. It does not make financial sense for me to not buy stamps in bulk, but I could be stopped from doing so if there was some sort of differentiation between campaigning and recruitment stamps.

But that all being said, I think there is a simple question I have. If we’re not going to be paying the admins anyways, what would more money actually do in the regard of helping the site dying psying for server upgrades, etc.?

[Haganham]

I still think increased monetisation in recruitment (and allowing ability to pay for a better rate limit) would solve two birds with one stone. Money to pay for a part time pro who just does the grunt work for the feature lists admins and dev managers have made.

Stamps and TGs are too cheap at present, and too many are being sent. API should be occasional and targetted (or paid and targetted), but the trade off should either be time (manual recruitment) or money to skip the time.

It currently costs $30/m just to maintain a regions' population. How much more expensive does regional recruitment need to be?

[Flanderlion]

I still think increased monetisation in recruitment (and allowing ability to pay for a better rate limit) would solve two birds with one stone. Money to pay for a part time pro who just does the grunt work for the feature lists admins and dev managers have made.

Stamps and TGs are too cheap at present, and too many are being sent. API should be occasional and targetted (or paid and targetted), but the trade off should either be time (manual recruitment) or money to skip the time.

It currently costs $30/m just to maintain a regions' population. How much more expensive does regional recruitment need to be?

Until supply meets demand. So up to you/other players, it should be expensive enough for either the site itself to recruit more (increase supply), players recruiting instead from other areas than onsite (more supply and less demand) or until enough people stop (reducing demand).

Stamps should be an option, not the option. Added bonus is the greater the price, the more resources the site has to invest in improving itself, but increasing stamp price is more to make them less attractive so new nations aren't overwhelmed with messages like at present.

[Comfed]

It currently costs $30/m just to maintain a regions' population.

Where did you get this number?

[Refuge Isle]

It currently costs $30/m just to maintain a regions' population. How much more expensive does regional recruitment need to be?

Until supply meets demand. So up to you/other players, it should be expensive enough for either the site itself to recruit more (increase supply), players recruiting instead from other areas than onsite (more supply and less demand) or until enough people stop (reducing demand).

Stamps should be an option, not the option. Added bonus is the greater the price, the more resources the site has to invest in improving itself, but increasing stamp price is more to make them less attractive so new nations aren't overwhelmed with messages like at present.

This is some "the problem is the poor" cognitive dissonance; new players will be swarmed with telegrams either way.

There are 23,000 WA members on this site, and more than 500 regions with a measurable WA population. If you think a day will come when there aren't 19 regions actively recruiting (even presuming only a manual and an API queue), you will be a long time waiting. The scale of things is just too much for that to ever be reasonable. And yet, there are not enough regions recruiting, generating their own communities for the content and diversity of this site.

Instead of attacking existing methods and making region-building harder on people without much in the way of financial means, alternative forms of recruitment absolutely have to be developed. This is why I have been pushing the region finder -- then end-all solution for recruitment cannot be telegrams, as telegrams are based on a time when email was the best recruitment method for getting people on NS.

Whatever basket of solutions are developed regarding recruitment, it is essential that the barriers to entry be low, and the options provided to new players be high. Anything less, and we add into NS' existing regional diversity decline and stack more power into increasingly bloated feeders.

[Haganham]

It currently costs $30/m just to maintain a regions' population.

Where did you get this number?

From my shop history.

This is some "the problem is the poor" cognitive dissonance; new players will be swarmed with telegrams either way.

There are 23,000 WA members on this site, and more than 500 regions with a measurable WA population. If you think a day will come when there aren't 19 regions actively recruiting (even presuming only a manual and an API queue), you will be a long time waiting. The scale of things is just too much for that to ever be reasonable. And yet, there are not enough regions recruiting, generating their own communities for the content and diversity of this site.

Instead of attacking existing methods and making region-building harder on people without much in the way of financial means, alternative forms of recruitment absolutely have to be developed. This is why I have been pushing the region finder -- then end-all solution for recruitment cannot be telegrams, as telegrams are based on a time when email was the best recruitment method for getting people on NS..

If nothing else telegrams should be more focused. Right now I recruit tag:new because really it's the only option.

[Trotterdam]

This is why I have been pushing the region finder

What features do you want such a region finder to have?

We can already search regions by name and tags, though not by WFE keywords. Embassies, although used differently by different players, are also a useful way of finding likeminded regions, if the one you're currently looking at is close to what you're looking for but not perfect.

[Refuge Isle]

If nothing else telegrams should be more focused. Right now I recruit tag:new because really it's the only option.

That's the point, and why more avenues of recruitment should be opened up instead of focusing on how to price-lock people out of existing methods.

This is why I have been pushing the region finder

What features do you want such a region finder to have?

We can already search regions by name and tags, though not by WFE keywords. Embassies, although used differently by different players, are also a useful way of finding likeminded regions, if the one you're currently looking at is close to what you're looking for but not perfect.

Functionally, the issue with telegrams (in addition to them being rather antiquated) is that they do not reach existing players who want to relocate, either by choice or after having a bad expeirence. Instead of those players falling out of the system and CTEing, or feeling like they have few options and are forced to remain where they are, a more modern disboard-like interface can be done up with an accessible and modern style. You cannot seek out telegrams that no one is sending you, and sending them to established players is generally considered poaching. So this method will encompass both that group as well as new founds who are turned off by telegrams as a recruitment medium in the first place.

I talked about it extensively in the thread that I made for it.

[Unibot III]

https://i.imgur.com/oZRglQC.jpg

Worth a try. "No whore like an old whore" as Brian Mulroney used to say.