Denied Site Administration Assistants

[Mike Nolan]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

This suggestion suggests adding Site Administration Assistants to help Site Advisors, Managers, and Directors with their tasks. The goal is to reduce their workload and address mental health concerns related to being overworked. Site Administration Assistants would mainly help Site Advisors by doing tasks like contacting personnel and deciding if some matters need site administration attention.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:

While there might have been ideas for more administrative help before, this suggestion focuses on creating a role specifically to aid Site Advisors. It recognizes their heavy workload and how it can affect their mental health. Unlike other suggestions, this one stresses the importance of making routine tasks easier to improve productivity at the site.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

1. Increased productivity: Site Advisors can focus on important decisions and tasks if they can delegate routine jobs to Site Administration Assistants. This could make the site more productive.
2. Improved mental health: If Site Advisors have fewer tasks to handle, they might feel less stressed and avoid burnout. This could lead to a healthier work environment.
3. It removes the need of Site Admin waisting time on things that arent their problem and can get filtered out at the assistant stage to stop them from getting an unneeded workload that isnt their problem which may interrupt their current onging duties and/or tasks.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

1. People might not like change: Some people might resist adding a new role because they're unsure if it's needed or worried about how it might affect their work.
2. It might take time to set up: Integrating Site Administration Assistants could be time-consuming and cause disruptions at first. However, im willing to pour my heart and soul into this if that's what it takes for this too happen.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:

This suggestion should be accepted because it tackles important issues like workload and mental health. By supporting Site Advisors with Site Administration Assistants, the site can become more efficient and prevent burnout. Despite the challenges, the potential benefits of better productivity and staff well-being make it worth considering.

 

[Sceptre]

- Support
Whilst I can appreciate the mental health grounds, I don't feel like another SA role is required at this time - if site admin are experiencing burnout, they should put in an LOA or ROA to address their mental health, just like everybody else does.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I honestly like this idea, but I think this should be done IC as an opt-in thing, where SA reach out to SC Assistants for this purpose instead. There's no reason to add a new job; The population split, working out the loadout and specific purpose in the server... Unnecessary, not needed.

You can and should accomplish this using SC's Assistants. This would give them more purpose in the server, without causing loadout/balance and population spread concerns, etc.

-Support to this suggestion of adding a new job, but
+Support for the idea. Raise this with people in SC roles immediately.

 

[Mike Nolan]

- Support
Whilst I can appreciate the mental health grounds, I don't feel like another SA role is required at this time - if site admin are experiencing burnout, they should put in an LOA or ROA to address their mental health, just like everybody else does.

While i appriciate your view, the main reason for this is just like mtf they have limited LOA and ROA and if they keep getting burnt out or taking LOA/ROA we will have no Site Admin on site since they're all burnt out and eventually they'll resign or distribute workloads anyways and i feel like its unfair since we give Site Command this luxury but why not SIte Admin, they are the forefront of the server to all clearences of personnel and are undervalued at times.

 

[Mike Nolan]

I honestly like this idea, but I think this should be done IC as an opt-in thing, where SA reach out to SC Assistants for this purpose instead. There's no reason to add a new job; The population split, working out the loadout and specific purpose in the server... Unnecessary, not needed.

You can and should accomplish this using SC's Assistants. This would give them more purpose in the server, without causing loadout/balance and population spread concerns, etc.

-Support to this suggestion of adding a new job, but
+Support for the idea. Raise this with people in SC roles immediately.

I mentionted that id rather it be a title not a job as that creates issues for SSL and like SIte Admin they have enough on their plate.

 

[Sceptre]

While i appriciate your view, the main reason for this is just like mtf they have limited LOA and ROA and if they keep getting burnt out or taking LOA/ROA we will have no Site Admin on site since they're all burnt out and eventually they'll resign or distribute workloads anyways and i feel like its unfair since we give Site Command this luxury but why not SIte Admin, they are the forefront of the server to all clearences of personnel and are undervalued at times.

Personally, I believe that if you are under the presumption that you might be burning yourself out, you should pre-emptively reduce your hours or simply take a break without getting past a point of no return. I personally consider Site Advisor to be somewhat the same level as Assistants, considering they're both Jr CL4 positions.

I mentionted that id rather it be a title not a job as that creates issues for SSL and like SIte Admin they have enough on their plate.

If this is a suggestion for a 'title' or an 'in character' role only that doesn't need a job, then you are best off approaching Site Command directly about this, as suggestions are for physical implementations of things

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I mentionted that id rather it be a title not a job

This wasn't clear in the suggestion. In that case, you should not have made a suggestion. Raise this with the relevant people.

I personally consider Site Advisor to be somewhat the same level as Assistants, considering they're both Jr CL4 positions.

All SA are Snr. CL4

 

[Mike Nolan]

This wasn't clear in the suggestion. In that case, you should not have made a suggestion. Raise this with the relevant people.

All SA are Snr. CL4

I brought it up with SSL and they told me it'd be worth making a suggestion as whilst id rather it be a title making a suggestion gives it a chance of being more as it can improve roleplay and by no means does the assistant have to be cl4 if it becomes a job

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I brought it up with SSL and they told me it'd be worth making a suggestion as whilst id rather it be a title making a suggestion gives it a chance of being more

...I fail to understand what you want to accomplish here - And it's likely that CT will, as well; What do you specifically mean by title? The suggestion says to "create a role" but you say you don't want to make a new job. What exactly is your intended result...?

 

[Harold Hawks]

SA MTF when though?

 

[Bohemia]

Denied before (Also this reads like AI I swear I'm not crazy) but not a *bad* idea

 

[Prplex]

This just sounds a bit like site advisors with less steps ngl

 

[Michael Dzhetnikov]

dont need more sa
-support

 

[Glazzing]

-support
this suggestion been denied so many times in the past, Site Advisors already act as assistants for SA

 

[KaptianCore]

-Support

I understand the idea. But this has been denied so many times we don't need more sr cl4 personnel on the server.

 

[Dalton]

+ Support, I like the idea

 

[Cary “Raven”]

- support

nope, this would take the entire point of SA away.

 

[elad]

Advisors ARE the assistants to the director

 

[Zen]

Get rid of SC and ISD and expand SA a bit tbh

 

[Ganch]

no lol

-site manager