Here's my take.
Having some fun while doing your job is a desirable thing, but the Admin role has to be taken very seriously, lest it come across as too "bush league". The position is that of judge, jury, attorneys, appeals court, and executioner. Pretty heavy stuff. Can't come across like you're winging it or are either inconsistent or in danger of becoming inconsistent. Someone else brought up "precedent".
Each Admin act establishes precedent that must be followed for future admin actions, so these actions need to always be carefully considered.
The job shouldn't be about belittling members unless they're thoroughly deserving of it. Like spammers. I say spammers should be completely fair game. Want to play with someone like you're a cat and they're a wounded mouse? The spammers are the perfect target.
Everyone who breaks the rules and draws Admin attention should be treated not as a bit of amusement, but should be instead treated as someone who crossed the line, needs to be informed very clearly and immediately in what manner they crossed the line, and what they need to do to avoid crossing the line again. Not some whimsical penance. Each person who breaks a particular rule should get the same "punishment" as anyone else who does the same. For example, personal attack, first violation equals 1-day suspension, with maybe time off early for a convincing apology. The "hot stove" rule of supervision. This is taught in the first week of any class aimed at supervision or management: The hot stove burns everyone who touches it. It doesn't get amusement from doing so and doesn't burn one person more than the other. It just burns fingers that come into contact with it.
Someone once said "It's not about punishing every misdeed; it's about ensuring that present and future conduct are in compliance with the site's rules."
I think it's perfectly acceptable for the Admin to have a whimsical side to him; otherwise he's just a rule-enforcing drone. But that whimsical side shouldn't be evident in the very serious matter of enforcing the site's rules.
And the admin should never seem "happy" to "punish" someone. It should be done regretably. Again, spammers are the exception to the rule.
And I may as well play this particular card now, since I'll end up playing it eventually anyway. There are a vocal few who will strongly disagree with me on this and maybe even present themselves as representing the majority, but...
When I did the same job at SI, which was a much larger site than this one, and whose level of quality in the only threads that matter (IMO) is still at a level we should strive for, I tried to be very consistent (helped immensely by being able to just slap an automatically-expiring suspension on someone when necessary, and by always being aware of precedent such as "First violation of privacy invasion equals a 14-day suspension; first violation for personal attack equals 3 days" and sticking by that.
An important part of my role there was that while I could "be myself" in certain aspects of my interaction there, that was limited to certain things. Talking to car nuts. Fielding questions. Dealing with spammers. But when dealing with the admin role, I held myself to very rigid standards. Again, always mindful of precedent I'd set and new precedents I was setting. Precedent carries the weight of written rules, IMO.
I was actively disliked by a lot of people, but highly respected by many times more people and as a result, the site was respected more, and so were its rules.
If I break the rules by cussing someone out, usually best to let me serve my time and don't toy with me or treat me like a kid at the same time. The average age here is about my age. We don't take well to being treated as children by those much younger than us and outright resent it.
I'm very opposed to the idea of adding admins from the user ranks. In the interest of consistency, the admin power needs to be in as few hands and the knowledge of precedent in as few heads as possible. The job is largely subjective by definition and subjecting it to different kinds of subjectivity by spreading it amoung several people would destroy any chances of consistency. Jill and I were very lucky at SI in that we definitely saw things eye to eye. We rarely disagreed on how to handle any particular situation.
Anyway, as this site gets bigger, we/you can ill afford to go into the future heavy admin load lacking consistency or adherence to precedent.
I think that people who break the rules often deserve to be slapped around, played with. It's fun entertainment.
This is perhaps what I disagree with most. Spammers should be treated as fodder for all of us. The same isn't true of someone who loses their temper and simply needs a short time-out to remind them that we don't play that here. Let 'em quietly do their time and go back to the community with the understanding that if they do it again, they'll serve more time. We're mostly grownups here and shouldn't be subject to ridicule. Especially on a site that differs from so many others in it's "don't ridicule others" rule. Setting a good example, and all that.
So I don't think you have to be a fuddy-duddy overall, but I think you and the membership of this community would be served well if at least when doing the Admin role itself, you're somber, mature, and damned serious about consistent rules enforcement.
Paying folks don't act like idiots. They have something to lose.
It's inconsistent, and therefore to be avoided, to treat paying members differently from free members. A personal attack should be treated the same whether the user has paid for extra features or not.
Most of the problems around here are on impulse. A timed suspension to me isn't sensible for adults.
Strongly disagree. A judge should not act on impulse. And any particular "crime" should be counted on to carry with it a certain "penalty", unless the "culprit" voluntarily (that was my requirement anyway) assures me convincingly that the same won't be happening again soon.
I don't disagree with being public about the admin role, though. That's a luxury you have that I didn't. I set my own precedent of being very private about the admin role, even to the point of rarely correcting public mis-statements about the nature of suspensions. It was a precedent I had set, so I had to stick with it. The Admin is even more bound by the rules and precedents than the customers are. I think being public about it is a good thing and am glad you set that precedent. I just don't like the ridicule precedent.
Regarding my desire to make the admin role a bit more formulaic by way of admin screens, that's more for consistency than anything else. A lot better to see a screen that says "Your posting privileges have been suspended for 3 days for personal attacks. You'll be able to post again effective [date/time here]." than for them to have to ask you what they did wrong, you may or may not answer quickly depending on what you're doing, and your answer either is something like "You know what you did wrong and the sooner you admit it the better" or "Say 10 Hail Matt's and I'll let you free, even though you really didn't break any rules".
It's all about consistency and treating the role with the level of sobriety most of us would expect from the role.
I don't know if you'll agree with this, but a number of folks thought I was pretty good at the role and I've done it for a very long time, so feel free to ask if you need any guidance on how best to do it.
I'm sure I'll have a lot more to say about this, but the game's on and my team's getting their butts kicked.
Edit: I should add that it'd probably take me two hands to count the number of people who very purposely burned their bridges long ago, but for some reason they're still here. And in some cases still causing problems. I can think of at least one person who lost their account and still hasn't got it back who arguably didn't have as mmmany or as egregious of violations as some others who are still here.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
Scammers! I salute you 
