Admins who are hated are typically and occasionally the best admins. Being hated means you're probably doing your job.
I disagree with this, and I think history over this game agrees with me. For public servers, like bot survival, I never wanted to approve admins who were power hungry or overly harsh. Yes there needs to be rules, but I wanted it to be, where if a punishment was dealt out, the vast majority of the players on the server would agree with that decision. If you play on a server, and you feel like the admins are breathing down your back looking for a reason to ban you, then who really wants to play there long term?
I have 60 admins on bot survival, and it's not overkill, the people there actually desire an admin to be on, I get messages from pubs when there's no admin asking if an admin can get on. When a good admin gets on the server, when I look at logs, the people actually are glad and happy.
If you play on a server, and when an admin joins, you're like "uggh", then I don't think the server is doing it right.
I believe an admin who can't step back and look at themselves and re-evaluate what they're doing, is too prideful to be the best admin they can be.
We've had a no-recruiting ban rule in the past, but after seeing what was best for people and the community, even though it would probably hurt the BBG, I took it off.
It's killed other popular servers before, having bad admins, and I believe any server can correct that if they make the hard choice to serve rather than be served.
*PSA, this is really not geared toward any specific person or server, just my general thoughts on that statement, I would actually apply this to a regiment also. If a CO gets on, and the majority of people are like "oh no" then the leader isn't being the best leader they can be.*