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.

 

[Ganch]

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.

So why would we add a role to both servers cause one of the servers runs differently?

-support btw

 

[Pyro]

So why would we add a role to both servers cause one of the servers runs differently?

-support btw

Because they won't add a Job to one server, they always add them to both

 

[cityismy]

+Support and give it to mase latte please

 

[Holland]

- support

I think this wouldn't help SA that much. As mentioned before you can use OSA ECA to help with site administration.

Adding this role because the USA can't utilize other assistants won't make sense. Instead, you should try to work with them.

Adding another unnecessary role that wont benefit both servers.

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.

 

[Callahan]

+Support, but only if Mase Latte is immediately granted it.

-Support
Honestly, I'm not sure if we need a SA assistant role.

1 - We already have Site Advisors, which are the entry level role into SA.
2 - OSA and ECA's are usually willing to help out SA if they ask nicely.
3 - More bloat to a department that is meant to be small.

 

[Foxatron]

Suggestion Denied​

---

Hi @Unit ,Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion.
The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion due to the following reasons.
You have provided no justification for adding this role or what role they would literally perform; in addition to this site advisor is essentially assistants to the Site admin team as it is the stepping stone of the department. Your suggestion will now be locked and marked as denied.​