Hello everyone,

I'm following up on what's been going on over the last few days, and on a few points made here and there by some people that don't seem to be bad ideas.

The last few days have shown just how difficult it is to be an admin. They already have a lot of work to do (on a voluntary basis, as I'd like to point out) and when certain situations have to be judged, it puts them in a bad position.

Quite simply, certain sanctions should no longer be taken by them. This would allow them to retain their legitimacy and impartiality in current cases.

The idea is therefore to set up a council (number of people to be determined, why not 8?), which would change each season depending on the top 8 in div1 (the others also have their say and there's no desire to dismiss them).

The 8 agreements would then appoint an elected representative for the season.

Chaired by a member of the admins, who will have no voting rights, the council will take place according to the number of subjects to be dealt with (every week? two weeks?...) The admin who chairs the council will state the facts, and the 8 representatives will vote.

It may be necessary to adapt a few sanctions (perhaps a 1-week ban if serious misconduct is proven) so that the council can take place. It's certainly not suitable for all cases, it's a rough draft and I think the community can come up with some good ideas when it takes a step back from situations like this, which encroach on much more than the game itself.

Any suggestions? :)

@aymeric45

I've seen a number of proposals in a similar vein since yesterday.

Jeff indicated his volunteer workload on his resignation topic. In view of these elements, we're short one or two anti-cheating admins (not counting the resignations) and a bug admin, because it's been a while since I've seen Blagoje give us a competition report.

But adding X councils or Y assemblies... sorry, but to me it looks like a Teodule committee. All the hoopla over the last few days doesn't give me much cause for optimism about our individual and collective ability to communicate.

It's clear that adding a board of admins is a never-ending trick for a game like vf, where on windy days there may be 2,000 active players.
And if one day the board makes a decision that isn't approved by part of the community, we're proposing to create a super board that will oversee the opinions of the existing board.
All these proposals are starting to sound like brain torture, even if they're well-intentioned.

Lebaygue: C est clair que rajouter un conseil aux admins,c est un truc sans fin pour un jeu comme vf ou y a les jours de vent dans le dos peut être 2000 actifs.
Et si un jour le conseil rend une décision non approuvée par une partie de la commu,on propose de créer un super conseil qui supervisera les avis du conseil existant.
Ça commence a devenir de la torture de cervelet toutes les propositions même si ça part d un bon sentiment.

I'm going to wait for the super mega grandiose committee to apply 😁😁😁

I think that too many anti-cheating administrators would be bad because there's too much disagreement between them, and that always leads to bias.
No more than 6 for me

I don't think that's necessary. 4/5 admins like now is more than enough. Just maybe make sure that we really take advantage of this number to step aside when colleagues with whom we agree are concerned, to avoid any ambiguity (however unfounded it may be).

I had proposed something similar in the topic on regen players, the possibility of appealing to a sanction, with a group of managers selected randomly every 2 weeks (or more to see), players registered for 6 months and active over the last 2 weeks.

To get round the risk of 'impartiality' on the part of the modos (although this has yet to be proven), the idea was that as soon as they saw a dubious transfer or a less-than-courteous message, a penalty would systematically be imposed. The offending player can appeal.

Then, with 1 modo and 4-5 players chosen at random, every 2 weeks or once a month, we'd look at the appeals and create a body of 'case law' (which would also make it possible to update the rules).

So yes, it wastes the modo's time, but it saves time on penalties. They see, they type, and there's no need to worry about feelings as there's the possibility of having a 'documented' appeal.

Nice idea, and it had existed in the past, albeit in a particular style. But against the idea, because it would only create tensions between irreconcilable agreements or people. Finally, it would lengthen the time it takes to make decisions.

We need to have complete confidence in the directors. I would be more in favour of the idea of increasing their number, as required.

Have a good game.

Obviously there's dissension between the admins, so adding this kind of committee is a bad idea in my opinion.

On the other hand, I think it would be a really good idea for all admins (whatever their position) to be part of the #entente?eid=2 agreement.

In theory, a game admin shouldn't be a club that plays the game (I'm not saying that admins are dishonest) but obviously this puts them at odds.

Unfortunately, it would seem that the game's creator doesn't have the means to manage the administrative (cheating, etc.) or technical (identifying bugs and loopholes, etc.) side of the game on his own, nor does he have the means to appoint an admin (paid or unpaid?) from outside the game.

So the only way to avoid what is happening at the moment (and which has already happened several times in the past) would be for the prerequisite for accepting to be appointed admin to be to renounce his current agreement and join the Saint-Maurice agreement.

It seems to me that the survival of the game, or at least the peaceful survival of the game, is at stake.

myforsans: Manifestement il y a des dissensions entre les admins alors rajouter ce genre de comité est selon moi une fausse bonne idée.

Par contre ce qui me semblerait une vraie bonne idée c'est que tous les admins (quelle que soit leur fonction) fasse partie de l'entente #entente?eid=2

En théorie un admin du jeu ne devrait pas être un club qui y joue (en disant ça je ne prétends pas que les admins soient malhonnêtes) mais manifestement ça les met en porte-à-faux.

Malheureu...

We need the return of the best admin of all time. Me, of course! No better proposal.

myforsans: Manifestement il y a des dissensions entre les admins alors rajouter ce genre de comité est selon moi une fausse bonne idée.

Par contre ce qui me semblerait une vraie bonne idée c'est que tous les admins (quelle que soit leur fonction) fasse partie de l'entente #entente?eid=2

En théorie un admin du jeu ne devrait pas être un club qui y joue (en disant ça je ne prétends pas que les admins soient malhonnêtes) mais manifestement ça les met en porte-à-faux.

Malheureu...

There are enough of them to avoid this. In a pinch, just limit to 1 per agreement.

The very fact of saying: limit to one per agreement implies a risk of partiality and creates the seeds of unease.

it's much clearer and less ambiguous if we require admins to be in the St-Maurice entente. If it doesn't suit someone, they don't have to be an admin!

myforsans: Le seul fait de dire : limiter à un par entente laisse supposer en filigrane un risque de partialité et crée en germe un malaise

c'est beaucoup plus net et moins ambigu si on impose que les admins soient dans l'ente St-Maurice. Si ça ne convient pas à tel ou tel, rien ne l'oblige à être admin !

Why should I do that? All you have to do is stand back when it concerns a member of your agreement. There are 4 of them (or 5 with these resignations/plus resignations, which are hard to see clearly), and that's more than enough to manage these problems by removing the admin(s) from discussions where impartiality may be called into question.

And yes, you don't have to be an admin. But it's already a boring job, if you prevent people from being in an agreement you're taking away good candidates. Nobody comes to VF to be an admin, but to play first and foremost. If you take away a whole part of the game, people will quickly get bored. Yes, it's possible to be an admin without an agreement, but that's not a general rule.

What's more, as I've said before, there are now enough admins to deal with problem cases.

The solution would be to have a few more admins and different agreements to make it more representative.

Then the community also needs to put egos and jealousies aside...

The admins and volunteers try to do the best they can.
But I think the number is also important, to have more time to work better.

Plarchios: La solution serait surtout d’être un peu plus d’admins, et d’entente différentes afin que cela soit plus représentatif.

Apres la communauté doit aussi mettre les égos, jalousies de côté…

Les admins, bénévoles essaient de faire du mieux possible.
Mais je pense que le nombre est aussi important, pour avoir plus de temps pour mieux travailler.

Like you, I think that all admins try to do the best they can and I'd even add that I can't think of an example of an admin who doesn't have integrity. The only problem is that, like any legal decision, there's an element of subjectivity and even unconscious influence.

So I don't agree at all when you say that they must be from many different agreements.
The fact that there are 2 LRs on the admins isn't a concern in itself, they have integrity, but what is a concern is that the LRs have accepted Teddy or someone else into their agreement (it doesn't matter what his X pseudonyms are, we're talking about the same person). But that's another subject.

So once again, to enable admins to work better and without the suspicion of some, they must not be from as many different agreements as possible, but all be from the same agreement: the St-Maurice agreement, and if that doesn't suit a potential admin, then he won't be applying as an admin.