okay, IMO it is, they are made-up positions... there is nothing that separates them from any other Admin... so, why make up the title, just to make someone feel more important? i've also seen these titles end up in fights between admins, because of "power struggles"... what's your opinion?Answer Question
Answer by Anonymous at 5:32 PM on Jan. 23, 2009
Answer by ashandamymom at 5:35 PM on Jan. 23, 2009
i am referring to the cafemom groups tell certain Admins that they are the groups "co-owner" or "head admin" when there is no such thing, and really they don't have any extra powers. in fact, the owner only has a couple extra things that only can she do..
Answer by AudlyLuvly at 6:06 PM on Jan. 23, 2009
Answer by AudlyLuvly at 6:07 PM on Jan. 23, 2009
Answer by debj49 at 7:09 PM on Jan. 23, 2009
Answer by AudlyLuvly at 7:15 PM on Jan. 23, 2009
Answer by kristal2146 at 8:10 PM on Jan. 23, 2009
Answer by AudlyLuvly at 3:32 AM on Jan. 24, 2009
If two moms get together to decide what is done in and with a group, even if only one has the capability to execute it, then they are co owners. The problem is with the way the groups are set by CM not with the owners. Also if a group has a profile it could be made the owner even though it isn't actually a person and either co owner can use it to access the GO controls. Which BTW are only the ability to promote admins, ask to have a group deleted and send a bulletin. Admins can do everything else a GO can do. So it does make sense from the standpoint of running a group.
What is your real issue?
Answer by Liansmommie at 3:36 PM on Jan. 24, 2009
Answer by AudlyLuvly at 10:22 PM on Jan. 24, 2009