It's annoying when staff members who SHOULD give up their powers, and willingly know they should, don't do it. For some reasons, the main Admin won't even remove them until "they willingly resign"..which is usually never.
The way I see it, if a staff member should be demoted, there shouldn't have to be a "he has to pm me and resign" rule. What makes me mad is that the Main Admin has every right to due as he/she pleases, why should he/she have to get permission from another staff member? I understand in some cases it's good to get the entire staff groups opinion, but not when it comes to demotions.
It's all a popularity contest as of late with people. Plus, some Admin do and say things in front of their staff members that they don't want said in front of the community, so, of course, they will no pressure anyone due to the belief that someone might say something they don't want said.
Silly admins, seems to me like you ran across some poorly run boards. We have a rule--what goes on in the staffroom, stays in the staffroom, and any staff member caught leaking info is instantly demoted. The info we have in there is everything from private venting about the latest n00b running loose and causing us headaches, to discussions about what rules to loosen or tighten or initiate, to plans for our ongoing sitewide plot, which would spoil it for a lot of people if word got out, because it depends in part on secrecy in order to proceed smoothly.
Admins who don't do their job and instead let their other staff bully them around--well, all I can say is I'm glad I'm not a member of any boards like that or at least not a serious member, because those boards are 1 step away from a meltdown.
They don't give up their powers, you make them give the powers up. We aren't impeaching Clinton here, you're clicking a button. If they don't like it, big shit. Too bad.
I remember back when I was added to the staff at FAC, I was brought on as a simple SH (Staff title "Site Helper) for the AP (Site program and staff branch "Approval Panel"). I was on the bottom rung of the site staff ladder, but it was the aftermath that really cought me and warrants this post adding it's revalence to the thread.
When I was added to the AP staff the webmaster terminated three staff due to inactivity based on the previous three months, one of them a co-admin level user. I found my self cought up in a series of attacks and retaliations among the former staff and the remaining staff that did end up resulting in the termination of a second co-admin level user due to her sever disliking of me personally. The whole thing lasted about three days with some very....um...colorful E-mails. It wasn't pretty.
Since then five other staff terminations (including one co-admin position) have been processed all of them by me with no trouble at all but still. Long story short, administration should not be so neglecting of staff terminations. Keeping inactive staff is breeding in weakness and a sure fire method to eventual failure.
If staff members are inactive, I'll generally send them a PM and ask them when they think they can make it back to the site again. If it's no time in the near future (generally school, college or work will have caught up with them) I'll tell them to deal with whatever real life business they have and come back to me when they are free again.
They almost always agree. This is my preferred method because it means that we part our ways in a fairly amicable fashion. I dislike disputes.
Now, when staff break the rules intentionally, it's an instant dismissal often followed by a ban. If it's a minor and purely unintentional breakage (a double post, for exampe), I'll send them a PM telling them to be careful. I'm not going to fire a perfectly good staff member based upon one breach.
If they break the rules more than twice (unintentionally) I'll tell them that if they can't be bothered knowing the rules, they aren't fit to be staff.
I've never had a problem with demoting unfit moderators, regardless of the reason for the demotion or my personal relationship with the staff in question. Sure, it's cost me a few online friendships, but that's really not my problem - if you can't keep business apart from pleasure, you have no business running a forum anyway.
I've never been able to understand why some admins will only demote mods who resign - or the common practise of continuing to allow them access to staff boards as some kind of 'retired' member group or something.
me: I'll give you a cookie if you remove your powers.
Mod: Make it two cookies.
me: *whines* you drive a hard bargain.
Mod: *cackles*
...honestly, if a mod's misbehaving in the first place, what's going to make them turn around and do the RIGHT thing? Rogue mods need to be demoted faster than any other kind.
Based on the violation commited, I will either A) Report it to other admins and moderators to keep a watch on he/shes activity. B) Discuss it with my admins on if we should demote or not. and C) Where I fear for the forum and demote immediatly.
I also have no problem demoting people if they are misbehaving or not doing their jobs. But I also have experienced instances where people just didn't like one another, and wanted someone to be demoted with no real basis for reason other than a personality conflict. In that case, I go with whether or not they are doing their jobs. If the person complaining doesn't like it, then tough.
Usually when I demote staff members, I let them know I'm going to do it via PM or IM. In most instances, it's due to inactivity. They're usually pretty cool with it. Never had a massive 'issue' about it.
