important Rank Changes [READ]

[Ben 2,378 / 31,861]

These are all good, however, I strongly disagree having admin applications taking a time up to at least 3 week and have Division Leaders to monitor and manage it. I mean, Server Managers are supposed to handle and take care of the server with these things

• Player Reports
• Admin Reports w/ DL discussing
• Performance
• Adding admins
• Adding maps
• Have access to NFO CPanel
• Have GFL EMail
• FastDL FTP Access
• Server's FTP Access
• Be on the server most of the time

And if they can't have all these stuff, then I'm going to have hard time learning to move on. Recently SouRD and I promoted someone to Trial Admin for a week and have been watching his activity for the server and the forums. No point of having Server Manager if they can't be trusted like that way. I REALLY understand if SM+ can't be trusted because of recent events that happened in May.

[Joshy 4,364 / 44,945]

I personally don't agree with this because it looks like we are repeating a lot of the same mistakes; I mean it's not a deal-breaker for me to see these changes in effect, but I do not think it's a good idea.  I'm at work right now so I plan to elaborate on this later - it's okay for me to browse the forums and make a couple posts here and there, but I think this one is worthy of a lengthy essay.

 

[HackingPotato 1,297 / 14,301]

Lets not rush more decisions. We understand that you want this change out quickly because of future events will take you away however we do not want to rush and have another incident. 

 

For rank promotions, I believe @Kim had a good tree 

Quote

 

People should not automatically assume that if you are a higher rank (Division leader+) that you will automatically get Directer, council, etc. It has bothered me with the current rank situation now and most likely will in the future. @Dano can vouche that i have ranted about the current promotion system. 

 

People should not be promoted and then automatically assume the will get another higher rank in the future. Server managers should be working hard to make their servers top tier within the community and not only work hard for DL.

 

Hopefully, we can crush that mentality with this new ranking system and I hope to god that future promotions will be seriously considered first. 

[Rcool64 1,007 / 16,299]

I don't mind this format. I think the biggest problem is with the lower part of the "tree" when the players become admins they aren't necessarily monitored enough to see what they've been doing.

 

As long as we find a way to keep better watch of the admins (maybe people other than server manager, such as head admins), it should pretty much fix some problems we're currently having. By monitoring, I mean watching what the admins do on the server and on the forums as well as other GFL server. The server manager situation could probably be solved by this as well since we end up picking out people we know are trustworthy.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Rcool64

[Joshy 4,364 / 44,945]

21 minutes ago, Rcool64 said:

I don't mind this format. I think the biggest problem is with the lower part of the "tree" when the players become admins they aren't necessarily monitored enough to see what they've been doing.

 

As long as we find a way to keep better watch of the admins (maybe people other than server manager, such as head admins), it should pretty much fix some problems we're currently having. By monitoring, I mean watching what the admins do on the server and on the forums as well as other GFL server. The server manager situation could probably be solved by this as well since we end up picking out people we know are trustworthy.

 

^ SourceBans is the solution for that.  We're not utilizing it correctly though.  I'll elaborate on that later too.

[Rcool64 1,007 / 16,299]

Just now, Joshy said:

 

^ SourceBans is the solution for that.  We're not utilizing it correctly though.  I'll elaborate on that later too.

Checking some bans that were done is a pretty good way to monitor as well.

[Joshy 4,364 / 44,945]

I'm just going to write because I wanted to finally respond (sorry for the high number of errors).  I've been so swamped at work these past few days and leaving a lot later than I was expecting.

 

If I am recalling correctly, this is what Council members were before and it DIDN'T WORK because too many issues burden them and they were beginning to lose interest.  Why repeat the mistake?  What we talked about in the last thread was making Division Leaders division-oriented, and Council members community-oriented (you were even playing with the name if you can recall); however, it was clear that we did not want Council members to have higher authority than Division Leaders, and they were merely guidance/advisers with diverse ideas and to act as a gap filler where Division Leaders may be absent, one division has a conflict with another, or the issue is related to multiple divisions.  Plus: We have an easy solution.  I believe the current Council and Division Leader set up isn't too bad, but the problem you're having is that too many things are coming to you where it should be going to the Division Leaders or Council.  We need to do two things: 1) Don't accept all problems and handle them yourself.  Delegate it.  Be diligent with the chain of command.  "Bla bla bla I have an issue with CS:S" and you respond "Let me invite <Server Manager> into this conversation" or "You can talk to <Server Manager>", then let <Server Manager> talk to a Division Leader ie. Thomas, and then they can talk to you if they cannot handle or need additional help.  I think I used this example last time, but imagine walking into a Walmart where the Store Manager was the merchandiser, sales person, cashier, and checked your receipt out the door...  they shouldn't deal with the little things and it should only work up to them after going through the chain ie. Discount issues goes to a Supervisor, then a Manager if it's too high, and Store Manager if it's for the wrong department or item or something (more complicated issue)...  2) Promote 1 ~ 2 Council or Division Leaders into Administrator positions to be your right hand.  This should preserve the working Council and Division Leader system, and it would still lift some burden off your hands.  It's also a whole lot safer than promoting an entire group of people (not that there isn't anyone here I don't personally trust).

 

If it wasn't enough to take away authority from Division Leaders, then the next bad decision was taking it away from Server Managers in who they select for admin and how; and it's not like Division Leaders cannot select bad admins in a haste decision either.  All we would be doing is adding more red-tape into accepting them, but there's always going to be loop-holes and bad decisions.  What you can do is hold the Server Managers responsible for bad picks.  I'm not talking about getting rid of them over 1 or 2 bad admins, but if there is a trend, then there should be consequences.  if you're getting a lot of reports and the Server Managers are not resolving it, taking measures to prevent it again (ie. demote a bad admin, stop selecting bad admins), then that Server Manager is designing the Server to fail, and that's when more problems come to you and people start skipping over the chain instead.  Accountability is something they do everywhere.  For example: If I were a sales manager and the sales associates were not hitting their sales, then I failed at my job and I would be the one in trouble.  Server Managers can pick bad admins because nothing wrong will happen to them if the admin sucks.  I'm thinking the admin abuse thing isn't bad enough to revamp the entire system anyways.  Another problem with this is that it's difficult to set a rule or constraint across the board when we host so many games here, and the culture for each game is very different.  Here's an example: The US Federal Government imposes some kind of farming bill across the board like a farm tax.  Well, imagine if I'm some Governor of a state that has no farm land... then you just hooked me up, but the other ones like California gets screwed.  I feel like the game mode, CS:S, is kind of dying a bit...  imagine your server doesn't even really have that many people and someone's admin app sits there for 2 ~ 3 weeks?  We risk losing people quickly.  Overall, the consequences of a bad decision are pretty small compared to the consequences of a slow-system here.  I'm not saying that mistakes wont happen, but being too protective and locked up is going to hurt us more.

 

I'm seeing a really big issue that wasn't brought up, and I think the issues you are seeing now are inherent of this.  SourceBans!  We're not using it right, and someone even mentioned a way of monitoring people.  I've been accepting new members and they are quick to ask me questions if there are issues because they don't know who else go to.  Well, someone got banned and it actually seemed like they had a reasonable rebuttal.  I took a look at the SourceBan history and I was extremely shocked.  There are people who get a 2 week ban on the first offense, and there are others who will have 2 ~ 3 bans and their most recent ban is 1 ~ 12 hours.  We're not being consistent, and I think the Division Leaders and Server Managers really need to jump on that and set clear guidelines in these forums.

 

 

 

(What I'm pointing out here is that the guy with 1st offense is banned 2 weeks, but the other guys with a total of 5 is 1 week, and another with multiple bans for 12 hours [and other bans are also 12 hr with no increase]) (Note that I'm not trying to call out the admin in this particular case because it looks a lot of admins are inconsistent and this person isn't alone)

 

 Unless the person is threatening to DDOS the servers or they're hacking or something... I don't think many bans justify a 2 week on the first go, and I've been seeing a lot of them.  A LOT of the bans have no demo, no comment, no evidence...  It's hard for third-party leadership to help or make a decision, and some admins will be offline for a long time or even leave the community (and later we'll have no idea what the ban was about besides that it happened).  A good example is in GMOD Purge.  Another issue we have is that players can't protest them on SourceBans, which would be way better for Managers+ to go through them at least on a weekly basis and clear out any protest; this would definitely resolve some of the protests that simply ask for forgiveness and doesn't necessarily need a thread.  We should get those threads back up instead of people looking for a spot in General Discussion to post it, or trying to PM random people until they come across the right person.  I feel like this whole thing is leading to a lot of confusion, and it makes sense why so many things will simply jump to you instead of having a Server Manager or Division Leader go through it to resolve it.

 

Sorry if this is all just rambling, but those were the ideas that I wanted to respond to first.  I may try to clear  this up later, but it's honestly cutting into my sleep time today.

[Bae 2,489 / 41,520]

@Joshy I just want to say that on Purge, we don't increase times on bans. We used to a long time ago, but considering with a different manager and all. We don't increase the time of the bans, no matter how many they have. We only do a perm ban, if and only if, all 5 bans are purge bans. If per say, 2 are from TTT, 3 are from Purge, it's not a perm ban. It's going to continue until there's 5 of them that are from Purge to be a perm bannable offence. 

 

For Purge,

1 week for mass rdm.

2 week for mass rdm & leave

1 day for rdm and leave

12 hours for rdm1-2 / multiple warn/kick

 

Prop spam = perm ban

Prop block = warn/ban varies from 12 hours to perm ban

Spawn kill = kick / ban for 12hours unless its mass which is 1 week unless they leave, its 1 day / 2 weeks.

 

Ddos threats is no longer a perm ban punishment. It's a week ban. 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by Bae

[Kim 953 / 11,372]

It depends alot on what server it is @Joshy.

I honestly don't see an issue with the bans on this guy.

 

Banning 2 weeks for mass rdm is probably a little too much, but 1 week isn't. 

The guy clearly doesn't want to play the game, If he just blatantly want to kill everyone.

Anyone doing a mass rdm will receive a long punishment so he either doesn't come back or understand that killing everyone/ruining the gameplay for others isn't a way to go and I am sure the guy know what he is doing wrong aswell.

This is gonna work the same way on Jailbreak, TTT and other role play servers.

 

Bae got a good list for you that show what would get you banned longest.

 

For Zombie-Escape we operate differently due to not being a Role-Play server.

Mass killing with a wall item on Zombie-Escape is seen different, we consider that just as being a troll, not mass rdm.

The guy will get warned and do he repeat, then get banned for a day and should he come back and do the same trick, will he then receive a week

 

One problem with this is that we share bans on sourceban. So if you get banned on TTT you cannot play Zombie-Escape etc.

This will of course lock you outside of any GFL servers completely. But again, should you be welcome on another server if you just ruined the gameplay on another GFL server? 

I honestly think you as a player should've checked the rules, if you didn't you are then on own risk.

You gotta see it this way; the role-play servers are haunted by players that either doesn't want to role-play or just join to straight up troll on the server.

 

About the Council/Division Leader setup

The new rank will help changing things and create a different view as a newcomer/regular user. 

Council are not just advisors, they are community managers and has always been.

Council is both to advise Roy and do jobs inside the community(Council is basicly the same as administrator just with a different title).

We want to create an advisor group without community managing power, to get as much feedback as possible from the community.

 

GFL is a big community with many different flavours and we always end up getting negative feedback on decisions.

As example, an idea would be created in the Director forum & talked through then the idea will then be discussed fully in the advisor forum,

so that we cut down most negative feedback possible.

 

When saying "You", you are talking to Roy right?

The thing here, is that Roy is due to how the forum and group legend look,

will he be considered the highest rank possible in the community(which he technically is, he is the founder :d).

This will of course lead him to get the most complains/ideas/suggestions, instead of getting splitted out to the Councils.

 

What we need, is a new group legend that show that Server Management is not Community Management. Read post here.

We also need it show what exactly each role are for in the community, so users know who to contact.

 

 

Adding admins

Server Admins should be fully choosed by the Server Manager, however if a Division Leader clearly can see that this admin is horrible,

then he should step in and tell the manager to either control him or demote him.

I agree that it can be hard to find admins for an almost empty server, but announce it on the server and tell the current population that you need help.

 

This message is cluttered as fuck

 

[HackingPotato 1,297 / 14,301]

I agree @Joshy that the sourcebans should be utilised more however what you are saying now makes no sense. 

 

The bans are consistent with the ban guidelines and the server. For example, if someone mass rdm's on Jailbreak it is a one week ban first offence or not. 

 

In a sense ban times are variables. The ban times (independent vari.) are dependent on the offense (dependent vari.) And depending on the server ban times can increase, which makes sense. For example, if someone mic spams and gets muted for 5 minutes then after the 5 minutes continues to do it they get muted for 10 minutes. Ban times are based on the situation and unfortunately sourcebans does not give the whole situation. 

 

I believe though, Joshy, that these rank changes are to help assign specific roles. Back in 2014 the councils did almost everything. Later we started to split the responsibilities to help. Specific duties were given to the new groups (division leader, trial manager, tech ass. ) and this new rank change is just continuing the process. The old councils responsibility are being split into different ranks so that everyone can carry the load and not just one group. Does that make sense? Because the councils use to manage division, give advice, work the forums, manage the community etc. But now we have a rank for each responsibility. If everyone works as a unit then the rank changes should be majority effective. 

 

just my 2 cents

Edited July 15, 2016 by HackingPotato

[Rcool64 1,007 / 16,299]

2 hours ago, Hatty said:

Fix sourcebans saying console banned a person when I ID ban them from ULX.

 

If I ban someone for sometime on clone wars it said Console banned them.

^^^^^^^^

It's REALLY annoying when I wanna search up a ban and half the time I can't even figure out who banned someone due to it showing up as console (when it's not karma bans on TTT). I hope we're not getting too off topic tho...

Edited July 15, 2016 by Rcool64

[Joshy 4,364 / 44,945]

I still respectfully disagree, but I can respect whichever decision is made.  I believe the idea is well-intended, but I see where this is going and we will be repeating some past mistakes.  My key point with Council, although it's not exactly written in words by Roy's post, is that it is effectively holding them above Division Leaders; it's no longer a guidance or advice position, but it's going to be an Administrator (even if Roy still holds the highest authority himself as Founder).  You want to take some burden off of Roy's hand?  Why revamp an entire system when you can promote one or two people to Administrator instead?  Problem solved; however, the even better way to is to utilize the chain of command.  Like I said with a Store Manager example... that Store Manager would look really silly if they thought they need 3 ~ 4 more Store Managers instead of actually assigning things to their lower-management and employees.  We're going about things the hard and complicated way, and the funny thing is, the right way is often the easier way.

 

I'm glad it seems most agree with me on that Server Manager stuff and selecting admins.  You nailed it in a short and concise way, @Kim, thank you.

 

Okay, I stand corrected so far as GMOD goes; my apologies.  I do still feel that bans are extremely lengthy, and will drive players away.  I'm also bothered that there are almost no comments, demos, or any form of documentation.  SourceBans is definitely not being used correctly.  It's literally only being used for bans when there are so many other features we can take advantage of.  It's basically a he said she said situation when people complain and we're basically expecting players to be more diligent than admins when protesting.  Really:  Admins should be held to higher standards if they are going to ban someone for such a lengthy time...  Maybe this is just my opinion and it's drivin' by my experience in CS:S; however, I have seen harsh punishments leading to problems in the future no matter where you go.  Business with strict rules?  They'll go down.  Other game modes with strict rules?  They'll go down.  Organizations with strict rules (clubs, etc.)?  It's not going to work out and people will leave.  You'll generally keep a few die-hard loyal people, but even they'll be driven away eventually, and especially if someone receives a 1 ~ 2 week ban over a misunderstanding.   I've seen this trend plenty of times and will advocate for less harsh punishments.  It's my personal opinion on a game I don't play; so: I suppose I've lost credibility here and could be wrong, but I just haven't seen such a system work out anywhere else, and a lot of places hit a hard downward slope before they begin to ease up (and it's too late).

 

Sorry for lack of proofreading.

 

[MrManslayerX 390 / 6,713]

Alright, so, basically what this means, is that unless you have the division leader for your game in your pocket, recruiting admins for a server that you manage would become an unnecessarily elongated and biased process... Especially considering Division Leaders would be busy looking into EVERY server under that game. And the DL wouldn't necessarily know who you're talking about, so the process would be even further elongated by the fact that they have to learn about that person for themselves.

So maybe this statement means that the server managers and DLs need to be more in touch with eachother, which I whole-heartedly agree with, yes, but I think that server managers should have execute-authority on recruiting -admins- for their own server.

Perhaps head-admin+ promotions would have to be looked into by the DLs? But not just regular admins. If anything we need to re-train managers to have a stricter admin recruiting process, which would greatly alleviate the issue of "bad admins". You can't have a bad admin if you don't hire them in the first place.

Me personally, I'm keeping a close eye on each of my server admins and operators. Anything I hear about them I look into immediately, and I've yet to get a single complaint since I've become co-manager. I've been being very proactive about my supervision as well, and very strict about my 'hiring' process for admins.

Post-Edit: Our server rank is also steadily climbing! :D

Edited July 16, 2016 by MrManslayerX

[Coolest Cat 1,266 / 14,449]

On 7/15/2016 at 3:33 PM, Joshy said:

I still respectfully disagree, but I can respect whichever decision is made.  I believe the idea is well-intended, but I see where this is going and we will be repeating some past mistakes.  My key point with Council, although it's not exactly written in words by Roy's post, is that it is effectively holding them above Division Leaders; it's no longer a guidance or advice position, but it's going to be an Administrator (even if Roy still holds the highest authority himself as Founder).  You want to take some burden off of Roy's hand?  Why revamp an entire system when you can promote one or two people to Administrator instead?  Problem solved; however, the even better way to is to utilize the chain of command.  Like I said with a Store Manager example... that Store Manager would look really silly if they thought they need 3 ~ 4 more Store Managers instead of actually assigning things to their lower-management and employees.  We're going about things the hard and complicated way, and the funny thing is, the right way is often the easier way.

 

I'm glad it seems most agree with me on that Server Manager stuff and selecting admins.  You nailed it in a short and concise way, @Kim, thank you.

 

Okay, I stand corrected so far as GMOD goes; my apologies.  I do still feel that bans are extremely lengthy, and will drive players away.  I'm also bothered that there are almost no comments, demos, or any form of documentation.  SourceBans is definitely not being used correctly.  It's literally only being used for bans when there are so many other features we can take advantage of.  It's basically a he said she said situation when people complain and we're basically expecting players to be more diligent than admins when protesting.  Really:  Admins should be held to higher standards if they are going to ban someone for such a lengthy time...  Maybe this is just my opinion and it's drivin' by my experience in CS:S; however, I have seen harsh punishments leading to problems in the future no matter where you go.  Business with strict rules?  They'll go down.  Other game modes with strict rules?  They'll go down.  Organizations with strict rules (clubs, etc.)?  It's not going to work out and people will leave.  You'll generally keep a few die-hard loyal people, but even they'll be driven away eventually, and especially if someone receives a 1 ~ 2 week ban over a misunderstanding.   I've seen this trend plenty of times and will advocate for less harsh punishments.  It's my personal opinion on a game I don't play; so: I suppose I've lost credibility here and could be wrong, but I just haven't seen such a system work out anywhere else, and a lot of places hit a hard downward slope before they begin to ease up (and it's too late).

 

Sorry for lack of proofreading.

 

Eh...

 

The lengthy GMod bans are mainly for the role playing servers and TTT (which is role playing in its own way). Back in the day when the bans were only 1 day for mass rdm on TTT, people just kept coming back and breaking more rules. Making the change from 1 day for mass RDM to 1 week for mass RDM didn't hurt the population or really improve it. It did help keep the bad apples out of the server, though. When the banning was more lenient, you'd see people with ban records that were 5+ before finally getting a significant ban. 

 

The servers need to be strict with the rules since they're role playing servers. It just comes with the gamemode. If the punishment wasn't severe then people would break the rules more and those who break the rules shouldn't really be allowed on the server because they ruin gamemode. And with the amount of people who are constantly breaking rules (because there's so many), it's a good idea to stop as many of them from breaking rules until they've changed themselves.

 

Also, the numbers kind of help put it all into perspective. TTT has seen 44,652 bans as of me posting this and it's still in the top 100 on gametracker. It also makes up almost 50% of all of our bans. The current banning system hasn't been hurting the TTT gamemode. As for Purge, I think that they've lost players for different reasons. For non-role playing servers, I agree that lengthy bans should be administered lightly. But the role play servers are their own separate thing for lengthy bans. 

 

 

 

Edit:

I'd like to say that the only thing I 100% want to see be implemented is the waiting period between applying for admin and getting accepted. Most apps already take over 1 month as it is so it's not that big of a change. It should, however, ensure that no one is being accepted without a proper discussion. Almost all admin apps should take a couple pages of discussion unless the guy is a model player who is perfect in every way. 

 

Also, I'd like to recommend that managers should "interview" applicants before accepting them. Interviewing an applicant who is obviously not going to be accepted isn't necessary, of course. Interviewing people obviously isn't easy but it'll definitely help with picking good candidates.

[Ben 2,378 / 31,861]

32 minutes ago, Major_Push said:

Edit:

I'd like to say that the only thing I 100% want to see be implemented is the waiting period between applying for admin and getting accepted. Most apps already take over 1 month as it is so it's not that big of a change. It should, however, ensure that no one is being accepted without a proper discussion. Almost all admin apps should take a couple pages of discussion unless the guy is a model player who is perfect in every way. 

 

Also, I'd like to recommend that managers should "interview" applicants before accepting them. Interviewing an applicant who is obviously not going to be accepted isn't necessary, of course. Interviewing people obviously isn't easy but it'll definitely help with picking good candidates.

Depends on the game division for admin applications taking over 1 months or so

 

I don't like this one at all, honestly. Managers should just be trusted enough and they have to be sure to watch and keep eye on the admins instead of having to wait 3 week period. If that(3 week period) actually does end up being implemented, I may have to use the option "if you don't like it, then leave" as many of other communities have used that option for the major changes. I'd end up having hard time for this. Combat Surf(The server I currently manage) have small admin team and possibly have more coming in the future depending on the stable of its population.

 

It would just end up having hard time contacting the DL to get their permission to approve the application before the approval date, which I find that as DLs controlling admin application instead of the server manager.

[Dano 933 / 15,507]

It seems like a lot of people don't understand what Roy means.

If your game's DL(s) do(es) not give their vote on an applicant within the said three weeks, you may accept them without the approval of your DL(s). However, if your DL(s) respond(s) quicker, the application can be accepted earlier. If you have the perfect applicant, your DL(s) will likely not having any objections, anyway, so the application should get approved by them within a few days if not less.

I'd write up more but I am very tired. I'll be going to bed now, goodnight.

[Addy 1,648 / 18,732]

58 minutes ago, Major_Push said:

Edit:

I'd like to say that the only thing I 100% want to see be implemented is the waiting period between applying for admin and getting accepted. Most apps already take over 1 month as it is so it's not that big of a change. It should, however, ensure that no one is being accepted without a proper discussion. Almost all admin apps should take a couple pages of discussion unless the guy is a model player who is perfect in every way. 

There definitely should be some standard as to how long an application has been open and when it gets accepted. I don't/didn't like seeing an admin app be open for 3 days then the admin gets accepted. There's obviously going to be special occasions, whether it be a certain person who applies or a server needs admins, but those occasions should/would be talked out with a higher up most likely.

[Coolest Cat 1,266 / 14,449]

5 minutes ago, Addy said:

There definitely should be some standard as to how long an application has been open and when it gets accepted. I don't/didn't like seeing an admin app be open for 3 days then the admin gets accepted. There's obviously going to be special occasions, whether it be a certain person who applies or a server needs admins, but those occasions should/would be talked out with a higher up most likely.

Pretty much.

 

It's a measure to make sure that no favoritism is happening. Discussion is important for an admin app.

[Roy 10,832 / 0]

Well, I read a majority of the posts in here. As of right now, I currently feel highly burnt out from GFL. There's many reasons for it (some of which, aren't GFL's fault).

 

I will make a post explaining the reasons I came up with this structure later. I currently don't have the energy or motivation to make one right now. 

 

Sorry for keeping everybody waiting even longer :\

 

Thanks.

[HackingPotato 1,297 / 14,301]

17 hours ago, Dano said:

It seems like a lot of people don't understand what Roy means.

If your game's DL(s) do(es) not give their vote on an applicant within the said three weeks, you may accept them without the approval of your DL(s). However, if your DL(s) respond(s) quicker, the application can be accepted earlier. If you have the perfect applicant, your DL(s) will likely not having any objections, anyway, so the application should get approved by them within a few days if not less.

I'd write up more but I am very tired. I'll be going to bed now, goodnight.

 

I just cannot agree with this. As a server manager, the responsibility of  hiring, training, and/or  demoting admins should be my responsibility without the approval of my division leader. I should not have to wait for a reply by a DL to hire a potential admin, if a DL disagree's with the applicant then they can reply (without being bias) as to why they should or should not be accepted alike everyone else (who has the authority). It is my responsibility to run the server and the servers administrative team, do not restrict me of such duty.