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.

 

[Nate Mercer / 'Tactician']

- Support
Oh boy, more bureaucracy.

 

[Benji]

- Support

 

[Mike Nolan]

...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...?

I want to create a role yes, but if its easier not to then thats fine.

dont need more sa
-support

they arent SA they're assistants....

-Support

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

not even ec assistants are snr cl4 i also said they dont have to be and can be cl3.

- support

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

the point of SA is to keep the site intact, how exactly can they do that if they keep resigning, taking LOA/ROA's and are getting overworked.

Advisors ARE the assistants to the director

cant assist someone who dosent exist(Uk dosent have a site director and our manager keeps getting called out on his competency.)

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

the first part no, but i agree the Site Admin needs more as i rarely see them actually doing stuff in site, they are glorified desk jockeys and need more rp around the site.

 

[Ganch]

cant assist someone who dosent exist(Uk dosent have a site director and our manager keeps getting called out on his competency.)

its really funny when you say that im incompetent but then dont actually forward it to the relevant people (O5 currently)

the point of SA is to keep the site intact, how exactly can they do that if they keep resigning, taking LOA/ROA's and are getting overworked.

thats just poor management, currently none of the SA on UK are on LOA? when we have a full team the work is spread out between 7 people, which is good enough

the first part no, but i agree the Site Admin needs more as i rarely see them actually doing stuff in site, they are glorified desk jockeys and need more rp around the site.

we can do a lot of RP but alas the feedback doesnt get given to us..? nothing changes if u dont provide any feedback to the correct people

the role of a SA assistant is pointless because we dont need an entry level job, advisor is our entry level and are the "assistants"

 

[Dr Random K.]

SA MTF when though?

DEA

 

[Michael Dzhetnikov]

they arent SA they're assistants....

so this is just a job that does most of the things sa do? its still related to SA, managers and advisors are around to help eachother, you are just suggesting an unnecessary job that is effectively a lesser site advisor (or manager). SA can still get help from other assistants if need be.

 

[Pyro]

Great Idea, would like to give people a role to experience a bit of what it is to be a member of Site Administration before actually joining it, however a similar suggestion has already been denied before.

 

[Lightsoulist]

Aren’t Managers and Advisors already assistants?

 

[Niox]

was SA consulted about this suggestion being made? (UK and US)

 

[Emilia Foddg]

our manager keeps getting called out on his competency

excuse you ganch is great

 

[Merrick Travolta]

as Far as I'm aware, Site advisors are supposed to fill this role for the SM and SD. In a similar structure to others.

O5-1	ECC	SD
O5-2-4	ECM	SM
OSA	ECA	SA

While obviously this isn't 100% the case (Heavily unsure for the O5 one in particular), It's what I have to imagine this is supposed to look like

 

[Emilia Foddg]

as Far as I'm aware, Site advisors are supposed to fill this role for the SM and SD. In a similar structure to others.

O5-1	ECC	SD
O5-2-4	ECM	SM
OSA	ECA	SA

While obviously this isn't 100% the case (Heavily unsure for the O5 one in particular), It's what I have to imagine this is supposed to look like

to be fair, if we go by the (current) chain of command, site advisors are above assistants (when not under direct orders) so they have significant authority in their own right.

again, i would consider what i said earlier in the thread about having SC assistants assist in SA duties

 

[Gure]

this has been denied so many times, no point of even making it a suggestion

-support

SA hadnles things fine on it sown honestly, best update for them is give them a bigger working space

 

[Pupper]

-support
we don't need more people that afk on their assisstant jobs

 

[Pyro]

was SA consulted about this suggestion being made? (UK and US)

Chat is this real?

 

[Lucius "Strike" Woods]

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

it is AI

 

[Arron 'Spectre' Shepard]

Suggestion Denied​

---

Hi @Mike Nolan ,

Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion.
The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion due to the following reasons.

Site Administration currently have sufficient capacity to handle all of their duties. We wish to avoid adding unnecessary bloat via a job which would not serve a unique purpose.

Your suggestion will now be locked and marked as denied.​