How much is to much from an website admin?

Anything that can be automated should be. Continuous integration, testing, deployment.

Anything that requires a personal hand or eye should have a backup admin for.

Anything policy and use should be governed by a clearly define set of rules with no exceptions made.

These things are non-negotiable. Anything less is negligence or arrogance.

How much is to much from an website admin?

Around $50 billion

Voat had a lot of admin involvement in stuff for a few months after the Reddit blackout, which is understandable. It did kind of set a precedent for everyone to keep asking or expect Atko or Puttitout to get involved in stuff that they really didn't need to be directly involved in though, and that turned into more of a problem after Atko left.

Most of the moderation here is done by admins, we don't have the userbase to fill all of the defaults with mods we know will put together solid rulesets, be smart with deletions, not require a bunch of oversight etc. If there is something happening that is not strictly against the TOS or whatever, I try to get involved as a user rather than an admin. In cases like that, there are usually discussions about how certain things can be handled by tweaking site features, rather than directly getting involved every time something happens. I think that is more important from an admin perspective, and something that should have happened on Voat a long, long time ago, rather than the situation being ignored or directly fixed.

Being involved as a user does make it easier to make informed decisions as an admin though, also something that did not happen on Voat, and it's part of the reason why groups of users managed to kind of dominate the site from time to time.

I figure they are there to keep things working and ad features. Not really expecting admins to moderate things.

Personally, I think the admins are a bunch of douchebags. That's just, like, my opinion, man.

I think keeping admin involvement in the sweet-zone will get a lot harder if/when the site grows. Just at Voat's scale, having that many needy users emotionally involved with the website has to be a major drain. The number of admins seems more flexible here than voat, which will help a little.

I think the admins of both Phuks and Poal have it about right. Meaning IMHO, being available to keep the platforms operating smoothly, upgrading capabilities, and fixing glitches in a timely manner are huge benefits for all. At the same time I've noticed that both aren't afraid to take a stand when necessary to enforce the rules they operate under, when necessary. There will always be those who drift in who are bent on disruption. When admins take a stand against this type activity, it is a good thing, not a negative. I have no heartburn at all when someone is quickly banned or booted when their only reason for dropping by is to drive away others or violate community standards just for fun and games.

Putt, on the other hand with his hands off style, though I get what he's going for, simply doesn't work. Even with a free forum where all viewpoints are welcome and encouraged, someone needs to take a stand. There are always do's and don't's anywhere in polite society, and if you ignore those who push beyond the limits, all others lose. It is also important that if you want a forum to succeed and thrive, an admin has to pay attention. Fix errors in a timely manner ... keep the lights on. That's where Voat has lost it's way.

Can an admin go too far. Probably. Getting involved beyond administration is not good, for instance. In a free forum, people need to be able to speak freely, so should an admin begin to delete or ban things because he or someone else disagrees with it, yet it violates no rules, then you went too far. Otherwise though, I always look at these places in the light that even if I am a contributor here, I'm still just in reality a visitor enjoying the place on someone else's dime. So unless they go mad dog crazy, which would drive me on to bigger and better things, I'm good. It's their house, their rules, I'm just happy for the diversion.

I think there are certain duties the admins should have. Any completely automated system is going to fall victim to brigades, etc. As far as Voat is concerned what they should have done was elect a subset of admins to run the website who could be trusted, all they'd have to do is delete illegal content and hand over subs, etc. As far as backup admins probably best to have one.

In a free forum it would be nice to have some way to flag content as fake news or deceptive while having any mod actions transparent and logged. The issue is on Voat (I'm not experienced enough here to tell) someone can post a news story with a deceptive headline and it'll get a bunch of upvotes and maybe one comment saying that OP intentionally misrepresented the article (or in some cases even made the title exactly the opposite). So the majority of readers think they are learning basic facts about the news without reading because they saw an article trending on Voat. I think that could happen on any forum.

Also an admin has a right to ask the hate groups to foot their % of the bill, especially if the admin is one of the groups the hate group wants to exterminate. Free speech sure but people are not entitled to give away $$.

<3

meh, I guess this is our casual conversation sub. It's a SFW default, so even logged out users see it, in case they want to login and participate. It reaches all phuks :p

It's admins jobs to comply with local laws and take out the trash from spammers. Thats it.

I think it just depends on the community and their concerns.

If a site is dialed in, the community is self-managing, and there's no security issues, very little admin interaction is actually needed (imo). In that situation, I think a monthly "hello how are you" from an admin, and maybe a quick Q&A is more than enough.

But when a community is growing rapidly, fairly new, or under malicious attack all the time, daily admin activities and something like weekly updates would seem fitting.

Infrequent management can make the user feel unappreciated, overactive management probably (at worst) will make the user pay less attention to what the admin has to say. This dynamic is exactly like the relationship between an employer and their employees.

It all just depends on how that admin wants the community to think of them.