Post by Rosa Calica on Dec 31, 2011 4:32:11 GMT -8
I can relate to this, somewhat. It is actually more of an unanswered issue I would need help in.
The character I had created for a roleplay was the daughter of a government official, and a canon character to the RP. The way the list of canons was set up, there were canons that absolutely had to have the surname and character details dictated, and there were ones that were entirely blank, with all of the details needing to be filled in by the person creating the canon. I had my character in the latter section.
Another person created the parent character based off of mine, and at least two more members joined the site to create characters that were part of that family, filling in an entire section of canons that were blank until then.
Months later, the site was shut down (for a stated "indefinite" amount of time), and my character and the related canons were no longer a part of the site-- not controlled by another person, not under adoption, not anything. The site re-opened to the public later on, and there was a new set of canon characters in the spot made beforehand, which is not a problem to me. The issue is that they have the same surname as the characters that previous members and I'd created. In fact, the entire section remains 'named after' characters that aren't part of the site anymore.
The question is, is the main admin right to leave that spot with any details belonging to the characters we made, or should they have simply blanked everything out and left it as open as it was the first time around?
To respond more to the actual topic, admin etiquette can totally make or break a forum. I'd joined a RP site where the main admin did things like overriding other staff decisions even when they were outnumbered and couldn't provide a good counter-argument for the override (there's a time and a place for vetoing staff ideas, but that admin kept choosing those moments arbitrarily). They also approved of members posting in threads or about issues that maintained a PG-13 rating and didn't break the ToS, only to backpedal at the first sign of disagreement from other people to retroactively punish the first member for doing something that was 'approved of' beforehand. There was also the issue of 'hidden admins', with members that were barely active on the site-- with no registered account to speak of, character or otherwise-- being privately appointed by that admin to influence decisions made on it without anyone knowing.
The lack of transparency made me quit, and that's the one thing I value the most when it comes to staff handling issues. I'm not saying that staff should have to tell the members everything that they do right down to the pixels they edited on the site banner, but as staff, they have the job of setting a good example for the rest of the site and giving members a reason to trust and be with them. Or else they won't stick around. And that's terrible. :P