Admin for a Day

November 10, 2004 9:47 AM

Admin for a day: To raise money (and give himself an occasional break) mathowie could occasionally auction off 24-hour admin rights. These temporary admins could delete posts, suspend miscreants and maybe even manually register new users.
posted by timeistight to Feature Requests at 9:47 AM (57 comments total)

God no. Because the reputation of MeFi cannot be put into the hands of the highest bidder.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:50 AM on November 10, 2004

midasmulligan?
boy, that would be interesting.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:52 AM on November 10, 2004

i definitely couldn't be trusted with the admin of this place, i'd suspend at least half of us before i even checked for misbehaviour. arthur, check your email, the one in your profile.
posted by t r a c y at 10:02 AM on November 10, 2004

I'm with t r a c y on this one. I think even 15 minutes of admin rights is too much for almost anybody. Remember the April 1st wiki?
posted by jessamyn at 10:04 AM on November 10, 2004

Timeistight has been lobbying for admin rights for a looong time now. AFAIC the answer is still no. (Too lazy to look up every post s/he made, on that topic, sorry.)
posted by Lynsey at 10:18 AM on November 10, 2004

I could imagine Matt hand-picking some admins someday, but AUCTIONING THE PRIVELEGE? This thread is absolute insanity. Either that, or a joke, which I don't get. What's the joke? Please tell me what the joke is. [cries]
posted by scarabic at 10:23 AM on November 10, 2004

Sweet ZJ, no. Anything but.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:28 AM on November 10, 2004

*practicing*

"Off with his head! Off with his head! Off with their heads!!!"
posted by amberglow at 10:31 AM on November 10, 2004

Lighten up, scarabic everybody. I'm talking about 24 hours. Even if your worst enemy won and deleted or suspended everybody, s/he didn't like, it's only a day. You could always outbid everyone on the next one to get revenge.

I think it'd be fun.
posted by timeistight at 10:34 AM on November 10, 2004

For true chaos, why not make six admin slots ala Bumplist? #1 retains all true site ownership power, but the six bumpadmins could hide/unhide threads, silence/voice users for a certain amount of time, and so on. Matt could set certain threads/users/whatever beyond the bumpadmin's power, if he liked.

Each user could get one nomination to give to another user per a set time period (day? two days?). As new bumpadmins are nominated, the knock one of the standing admins off. They stay until they are knocked off themselves.

It'd either be cool, a mess, or a great prison experiement.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 10:37 AM on November 10, 2004

(Ungh. Note to self. Spell check.)
posted by robocop is bleeding at 10:40 AM on November 10, 2004

That would be a great idea, because there are no giant turds on this site who would screw everythi--

Oh, wait.
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:41 AM on November 10, 2004

I think it would be an utter clusterfuck and it would make Matt's job alot more tedious and difficult.

Timeistight, why don't you let all of us admin your site and see how that goes first?

For what its worth, I think jumping cars off the side of dams is fun too but people don't seem to want to loan me their cars anymore, I'm not sure why.
posted by fenriq at 10:41 AM on November 10, 2004

Oh, no. Bad Idea. Too many people would get all Roman Emporer on our collective ass. I say this because I know I probably would.
posted by jonmc at 10:43 AM on November 10, 2004

So… I'm getting the impression you guys don't like this idea.
posted by timeistight at 10:48 AM on November 10, 2004

How is this concept even debatable? WATCH OUT GUYS, HE'S ONE OF THEM!
posted by naxosaxur at 10:48 AM on November 10, 2004

I've just talked to mr. Soros, who was nice enough to fund my effort. Let's do it.
posted by matteo at 10:48 AM on November 10, 2004

Cleaning up after 24 hours of wild west cockbucketry would easily take Matt more time than he would have spent admining the site that day.
posted by luser at 10:49 AM on November 10, 2004

Cleaning up after 24 hours of wild west cockbucketry would easily take Matt more time than he would have spent admining the site that day.

What would there be to clean up?
posted by timeistight at 10:53 AM on November 10, 2004

i'd rather matt just pick a few people he trusts to be fair, people he knows really well... if he needs someone to manage the place while he's on vacation.

it's actually a fun idea, but not with us characters involved.
posted by t r a c y at 10:54 AM on November 10, 2004

The worst person to admin MetaFilter is probably the one that wants the job most. Bit like politics.
posted by normy at 10:56 AM on November 10, 2004

I'm all for it. It couldn't possibly go wrong. The left wouldn't even think of banninating konolia, MidasMulligan, Witty, 111, ParisParimus etc. They in turn wouldn't think of doing the same to everybody else. Besides, it's self limiting. How many people could you ban in 24 hours even if you used a script? Maybe MetaFilter could handle 1 ban a minute before we got jrun errors.

That'd limit it to only 86400 bans!
posted by substrate at 11:00 AM on November 10, 2004

What would there be to clean up?

The giant psychological mess of a thousand unhappy, weepy, whiny members.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 11:05 AM on November 10, 2004

How would that be different from now?
posted by timeistight at 11:06 AM on November 10, 2004

The left wouldn't even think of banninating

it's not about the people you banninate. it's about the people you give new accounts to. my list:

-- females

-- non-USians

-- Muslims

-- gays and lesbians


then we'd finally kill the boyzone thing, the all-US-politics-on-the-Front-Page-thing, the "gays make the Baby Jesus cry" thing, the "Islam is scary" thing.

incipit vita nova, finally
posted by matteo at 11:14 AM on November 10, 2004

the other 51% of america might be interesting too.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:21 AM on November 10, 2004

Yes, let's custom tailor our membership to make matteo happy.

Please. I thought part of the point of the internet was that you're judged on your ideas, not on somebody'd prejudices of who you are.
posted by jonmc at 11:22 AM on November 10, 2004

addendum: call me crazy, but I'm more interested in what someone actually says than who they have sex with or where they come from.
posted by jonmc at 11:25 AM on November 10, 2004

The idea of somebody going crazy and banning half the site doesn't particularily worry me. But even with an idea like this working really, really well, it'd still booch the site because there'd be even less consistency in what was and wasn't acceptable in posts and comments.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:26 AM on November 10, 2004

How about if Matt just randomly picks a different person every day, but doesn't tell them. They just find out when they open their e-mail and discover all the complaints.
posted by briank at 11:27 AM on November 10, 2004

I, for one, would welcome our new non-american muslim lesbian overlords.
posted by timeistight at 11:28 AM on November 10, 2004

They (the new non-american muslim lesbian overlords) would do a better job of not trouncing on my rights and offering an olive branch with one hand while holding a submachine gun in the other.

Can we make them the president too?
posted by fenriq at 11:41 AM on November 10, 2004

Yes, let's custom tailor our membership to make matteo happy.

funny how some still think, in 2004, that diversity of nationality/gender/religion/sexual orientation is somewhat not desirable
posted by matteo at 11:44 AM on November 10, 2004

the point of the internet was that you're judged on your ideas,

it's also that it doesn't matter where you live or who you fuck or who you worship. etc.
but of course you're free to argue that we don't have enough American straight males on MeFi
posted by matteo at 11:46 AM on November 10, 2004

I think diversity is fine. I think picking our membersip on the basis of it (as you seem to be suggesting), rather than keeping it either open to all or on the basis of quality of content to basically nothing more than dressed up tokenism.
posted by jonmc at 11:49 AM on November 10, 2004

and the fact that you even bother to argue that we don't have enough women/gays/muslims/3-eyed slovakian midgets shows your own prejudices. I'd simply argue that we don't have enough quality posters of any kind.
posted by jonmc at 11:51 AM on November 10, 2004

But, jonmc, it's neither open to all nor on the basis of quality of content now.
posted by timeistight at 11:51 AM on November 10, 2004

I know. But arguments about what will improve the site should be based in quality of material, not heart-warming visions of UN Chanakwanzaamas cards.

Besides, I'm suspicious of ostentatious do-gooders. It's ultimately more about them than the people they supposedly champion. Read Richard Price's novel Samaritan to get a clearer idea of what I'm talking about.
posted by jonmc at 11:55 AM on November 10, 2004

*crosses jon off Chanakwanzaamas card list*

it's not ostentatious or do-gooderish to call for more diversity here--that's been a common call for ages now, with many threads devoted to it.
posted by amberglow at 12:02 PM on November 10, 2004

your own prejudices

yeah, diversity equals prejudice
*snicker*

jon, since open membership for all who'd like one is not an option here, we can either find a system or simply rely on chance (which we don't do anyway -- if you can subscribe at, say, 6 PM New York time you're cutting off many prospective users who live in faraway time zones).

I think that women, gays, non-Christians and English-speaking foreigners can add a lot to this site. especially Americans should strive toward a more diverse MetaFilter.
you don't think so, good.

I'm suspicious of ostentatious do-gooders

well, I'm totally bored by people who keep going with the "aw shucks I'm a reasonable common man among silly egghead do-gooders" shtick. but, you know, tough shit.

also, as a Price fan, you should know that "Samaritan" is his weakest work.
posted by matteo at 12:05 PM on November 10, 2004

I think diversity is fine.

I think the argument is that diversity is possibly desireable to a healthy and well-rounded community. As a chick, I'd like to see more chicks here, or just more people that didn't think saying "fuck [insert thing to be fucked here]" was the height of witty repartee. Does that make me a do-gooder? If so, fine.
posted by jessamyn at 12:09 PM on November 10, 2004

Pounding away with the "common man persona" on me is getting cliched in and of itself, since it's not a title or designation I asked for.

And thinking that membership shout not be based on race/sexuality/religion != I don't want them here. You may not like me or a lot of the things I say but to accuse me, however obliquely, of bigotry is insane.

also, as a Price fan, you should know that "Samaritan" is his weakest work.

It's not as brilliant as The Wanderers, Ladies Man or The Breaks but it's definetly the best of his post-Hollywood work.

Frankly, I'd consider Bloodbrothers his weakest, since the writing utterly failed to hold my interest, the first and only time that happened with Price.
posted by jonmc at 12:14 PM on November 10, 2004

I dont think anyone is calling for diversity at the *expense* of quality. It'd be best to have both. Some of the most interesting and enlightening threads have been where someone from an entirely different walk of life steps in and give their opinion.

I've noticed that the people from other countries that are here carry more than their share of the burden already in stepping in to provide a non-American perspective. They need help.

Besides the groups matteo mentioned above, it'd be nice to have more perspectives from the older generation, people in their 60's or 70's or 80's with experience to share.

I dont dispute that quality is good but at some point, when you are in a room of 20-something, white, American, males who are computer-savvy - there's a lot less opportunity to stumble upon something new. In the history of ideas, cross-fertilization is key.
posted by vacapinta at 12:16 PM on November 10, 2004

on preview: amber, c'mon, you're an important contributor here because of quality of your insights and how communicate them, not simply because your a gay man. I realize that that's a part of who you are and informs your beliefs and opinions, but ultimately it's about the content.

I mean, we only have a few right wing christians here (vocal ones, yes), I don't see anybody arguing for more. It would add more diversity, right?
posted by jonmc at 12:18 PM on November 10, 2004

I'd like to see more chicks here

Me too! Maybe each female member should get five invitations to pass out.
posted by timeistight at 12:21 PM on November 10, 2004

For Jessamyn:

posted by iconomy at 12:30 PM on November 10, 2004

I mean, we only have a few right wing christians here (vocal ones, yes), I don't see anybody arguing for more. It would add more diversity, right?

That would be fine, as long as they were truly interested in discussion. That should be the criteria. More voices of all kinds is what's desired.

and thanks
posted by amberglow at 12:35 PM on November 10, 2004

your welcome.

And frankly, I think this little mini-tempest undersores how badly we need new members of any kind. We've become so familiar with eachother's rhetorical quirks and personalites that we've all started to grate on eachother. It's gotten to the point where I can predict who will show up to say what where. And that's not good.
posted by jonmc at 12:39 PM on November 10, 2004

no no no no no no no no.
posted by crunchland at 1:01 PM on November 10, 2004

Oh, thanks a lot, crunchland. It really looked like it was going to happen until you came along.
posted by timeistight at 1:15 PM on November 10, 2004

you're welcome. Now keep your lunatic ideas to yourself next time.
posted by crunchland at 1:19 PM on November 10, 2004

I think this is a wonderful idea.

Where do I sign up? I think I have some really creative ideas for munging things in wacky ways. I'll have a different theme every hour. First hour - ladies only. Next hour - Only usernames over 12 characters.

Let's make this happen.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:35 PM on November 10, 2004

Now keep your lunatic ideas to yourself next time.

If at first you don't suceed, try, try again.
posted by timeistight at 1:58 PM on November 10, 2004

cockbucketry

I'd just like to mention that this is an excellent word, and I support its use and dissemination (so to speak) to the world at large.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:29 PM on November 10, 2004

halliburton for moderator!
posted by bonaldi at 7:08 PM on November 10, 2004

Do you have any idea what would happen to this place if I was the moderator? It would not be a good idea.

The reputation of MeFi cannot be put into the hands of the highest bidder.

We are all equals here at mefi, but some are more equal than others.
posted by Keyser Soze at 7:50 PM on November 10, 2004

What would work even better is this:

When Matt needs money, he clicks a button and a random user gets admin status.

The random user retains admin status until Matt gets $100 in his paypal account.

If he ever needed money really quick (like, within fifteen minutes) he could skip the random step and just promote Paris.
posted by cell at 6:18 AM on November 11, 2004