Denied Site Admin Assistant role

[Unit]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion adds an assistant role to site administration and overall adds more non-combative/administrative roles to the server.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not to my knowledge

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- More non-combative roles/RP
- Gives opportunity to advance to Site administration more directly
- Lessens the workload on SA members and thus brings notoriety to assistants looking to gain Sr. Cl4 positions

Possible Negatives of the suggestion
- May add confusion to the server of what assistant is what. But color coding and adding their name at the beginning would fix this problem.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted
I believe my suggestion should be accepted because not only does the positives FAR outweigh the negatives but also, the use of assistants throughout the server is extremely common. This role has mutual benefits and no drawbacks as SA receive extra help and the elected assistant receives notoriety for their work and therefore have a much easier chance at a role such as SA. Finally, overall, the server benefits as more RP is gained as well as more roles for more non-combative people to work towards.

 

[Mayuri]

+Support

 

[Change Z. "Somebody"]

makes sense
+support

 

[Revolutionary]

+Support

 

[Chad]

+support

 

[Rowday]

+support

 

[Alpha Toon]

Surely the work load of Site Administration can't be that much to the point where the work load can't be split amongst the 3 ranks within SA

 

[Gure]

+support

 

[Silvestro]

+ SUPPORT
you play like god add me?

 

[Broda]

I suggested this before and it got denied. Good luck trying to get it through.

 

[Pyro]

+Support

I Generally vote in favour those who apply for SA to have a better grasp of how Site Administration works & generally speaking not many fully understand all that we do, I believe SA Assistant is a perfect suggestion that would definitely improve that disconnect in information & Improve the quality of Advisors we accept overall.

In terms of Hierarchy I'd Assume they would fall under the same as OSA & ECA's whilst not under orders & whilst under orders they would be of the same power of an Advisors but any member of Site Administration, Including Advisors would be able to over rule any order given by an SA Assistant.
This is a genuinely great Suggestion & I hope it is Accepted!

 

[Pyro]

Surely the work load of Site Administration can't be that much to the point where the work load can't be split amongst the 3 ranks within SA

Work load is fine, however I think that Assistants to Site Administration would be an amazing Idea.

As I stated in my +Support above, Site Administration doesn't generally have anything publicly available that describes what we do as an Administration besides Applications from the forums which to be honest, most of which people list in their applications doesn't even grasp the surface of what we do.

Site Administration Assistants would be working closely with Advisors and their Departments they Oversee however wouldn't be complete Departmental Reviews but rather Orders given by Site Administration regarding certain individuals eg. Investigating the conduct and professionalism of a current application of DoM, DoR or CoS & MTF Nu-7 & E-11 COM candidates to further help Site Administration on deciding an individual or Assisting an Advisor/Manager or the Director with an Audit of a Department, among a number of other things they would be assigned to doing.

 

[Pyro]

I suggested this before and it got denied. Good luck trying to get it through.

Site Administration generally in favour of something that would benefit their Administration: 1984'd

 

[SquirrellyJr]

+Support

 

[grnappa]

+Support

 

[Wonka]

-support

You have overseer assistants and ethics assistants, they both can help site administration when necessary. There's no need for another assistant role.

 

[McFlurry]

-Support

Already denied. If you want to advance into SA then you could apply for OSA and ECA.

 

[Pyro]

-support

You have overseer assistants and ethics assistants, they both can help site administration when necessary. There's no need for another assistant role.

Overseer & Ethics assistants are assistants to the Site Command they report to, not Site Administration, furthermore SA doesn't have a channel to really do anything with ECAs and OAs outside of the server to communicate big projects for them if that's the case of just have the current assistants to help.

 

[Wonka]

Overseer & Ethics assistants are assistants to the Site Command they report to, not Site Administration, furthermore SA doesn't have a channel to really do anything with ECAs and OAs outside of the server to communicate big projects for them if that's the case of just have the current assistants to help.

You clearly don't understand how this works. That's just the failure of US Site Command to utilize their assistants to assist site administration. This has been done on multiple occassions on the UK server and it worked out well. Adding another assistant whitelist would solve nothing, it would just be another useless job that brings no value to RP.

 

[Pyro]

You clearly don't understand how this works. That's just the failure of US Site Command to utilize their assistants to assist site administration. This has been done on multiple occassions on the UK server and it worked out well. Adding another assistant whitelist would solve nothing, it would just be another useless job that brings no value to RP.

UK & USA servers run completely differently, both have different ways of running as Site Command, Site Administration & as MTFs & Departments.

This is all I will say more to you on this matter.