Administrative Section "Must be Involved" - How involved?

Pandarsenic · Post by **Pandarsenic** » Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:20 am #2257

Bottom post of the previous page:

If someone was in the round and goes, "I didn't see what they did there, but they did this (un?)related shitty thing," is that a relevant post? I'm iffy, but leaning to 'yes.'
If someone was not in the round and goes, "They did a similar thing in this round, too," is that a relevant post? I'm definitely leaning yes on this one.
If someone was not in the round and goes, "I didn't see what they did there, but they did this (un?)related shitty thing," is that a relevant post? I'm thinking not, with case-by-case "It's sort of related" potential. There's an obvious difference between 'But he sometimes steals the flash from the arrivals checkpoint' and 'I thought he was supposed to be permabanned for metagaming?'

I'd like other people to contribute on this topic but keep in mind:
This is not so people can stenograph. That's a different subject. This is about what IS relevant to an IMMEDIATE, ONGOING ban request or appeal for actions taken in a specific round.

420goslingboy69 · Thu May 01, 2014 2:31 am

>we want to be professional and civil
Boring, unfun, and uncustomary of a 4chan server; censorship is also a thing that shouldn't be on a 4chan server.

Apsis · Post by **Apsis** » Fri May 02, 2014 11:03 am #3285

I'd support a moderated Steno also. You guys didn't really learn anyway. It was never the actual problem, and the actual problem is probably unfix-able.

Pandarsenic wrote:Could work, or they can post to wherever else - off-topic maybe, or...?

Won't work if things can be deleted off the fly. It's nicer to see whats been deleted like what we do on the forums here.

Jordie0608 wrote:IRC, 4chan, http://singulo.io

OOC usually works too.

Post by **oranges** » Tue May 06, 2014 1:48 am #3917

Without a Steno this forum will be dead within a few months.

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:32 am #3930

oranges wrote:Without a Steno this forum will be dead within a few months.

We're not allowed to post in FNRs if we are not either the OP, an Admin, or the person being FNR'd. This is regardless of post content and relevancy.
We're not allowed to commentate on FNRs on-site, because FNR itself is heavily moderated and Steno is gone.

We can watch the trainwreck happen, but we're powerless to stop it.

Jeb · Post by **Jeb** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:41 am #3933

Psyentific wrote:
oranges wrote:Without a Steno this forum will be dead within a few months.
We're not allowed to post in FNRs if we are not either the OP, an Admin, or the person being FNR'd. This is regardless of post content and relevancy.
We're not allowed to commentate on FNRs on-site, because FNR itself is heavily moderated and Steno is gone.

We can watch the trainwreck happen, but we're powerless to stop it.

Not being able to commentate on FNR's is not going to kill the official site of tgstation servers.

It's been said multiple times, if you have an issue with a player, open a thread. Nobody can get past the whole BUT WHERE DO I SHITPOST mentality that they gained on the old forums.

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Tue May 06, 2014 3:01 am #3939

Jeb wrote:
Psyentific wrote:
oranges wrote:Without a Steno this forum will be dead within a few months.
We're not allowed to post in FNRs if we are not either the OP, an Admin, or the person being FNR'd. This is regardless of post content and relevancy.
We're not allowed to commentate on FNRs on-site, because FNR itself is heavily moderated and Steno is gone.

We can watch the trainwreck happen, but we're powerless to stop it.

Not being able to commentate on FNR's is not going to kill the official site of tgstation servers.

It's been said multiple times, if you have an issue with a player, open a thread. Nobody can get past the whole BUT WHERE DO I SHITPOST mentality that they gained on the old forums.

What if I don't want to shitpost? That's really my problem here. I read FNRs - I read all the FNRs. Most of the time, on the old forum, I'd leave a trivial comment. "Stay banned, fagit" - I can't do that on the new forums, and I'm okay with that. I'd like to be able to do it, sure. It's always fun to publicly laugh at the shitters appealing a ban for non-antag murderbone on the same day.

But most of the time, the OP of an FNR puts in a token effort. I'd point to Mimey's ban request, but in particular and more relevantly Here, Ban Req for Sam8411. The former, Mimey, was blanket moderated. I admit, my first post in the thread was purely anecdotal, however I gave a time frame within 48 hours and provided four incidents. No, I didn't have timestamped logs, but quite frankly I shouldn't need them. The second, in Sam8411, was my own account of the events in the OP - Under my interpretation of policy, the only reason it wasn't trashcanned was because it was the same event.

Quite plainly, that should not be.

By basing FNRs off incidents instead of players, you're going to lose so much to people like me, who don't want to go to the trouble of putting up a full FNR and maintaining a thread for each seperate incident of someone being bad. I prefer to bandwagon, because it allows someone else to make the thread, but also allows me to pitch in and support their arguement - Again, see Sam8411, where I did all the heavy lifting.

Yes, I agree that the worst part of the old FNRs was that it wasn't moderated - That entire ban appeals/requests could be derailed by pure shitposting. Thus, Steno. Steno fills a niche, and that niche is in demand by a vocal segment of the playerbase. Denying it because it's pure shitposting is bad - The entire point of steno is shitposting, yelling "STAY B& FAGET". I'm very much in favor of a heavily moderated, clean and professional FNR, but there's a lot of stuff I want to say that I can't say. Half of that is supporting someone's case in FNR - here and here. The other half is peanut gallerying - Steno. Somewhere you actively funnel shitposts into, so you don't have to deal with them and so I have a place to do it. Make Steno an unlocked subforum of FNR Trash.

AseaHeru · Post by **AseaHeru** » Tue May 06, 2014 12:57 pm #4014

What Psy said. Basing it off of a player is rather silly and will just result in piles of posts, or no posts at all, basing it on a player will actually have a change of this trash brought to light.

And not all of Steno was shitposting, a small chunk of it was people discussing things, like in one case my pointing out that another server banned the same person for the same reasons.

Post by **MisterPerson** » Tue May 06, 2014 2:34 pm #4027

You're not helping your case when the best you can do is "a small chunk of posts wasn't shitposting".

Hornygranny · Post by **Hornygranny** » Tue May 06, 2014 5:56 pm #4070

This is a good opportunity to remind you that the forum is a service for the game, and not the other way around. FNR exists solely so we can handle administrative issues. If the rest of the forum dies because there's no stenography, I absolutely do not care.

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Tue May 06, 2014 8:01 pm #4093

Hornygranny wrote:This is a good opportunity to remind you that the forum is a service for the game, and not the other way around. FNR exists solely so we can handle administrative issues. If the rest of the forum dies because there's no stenography, I absolutely do not care.

Do you not give a shit about the community? Because posting that sounds like you don't give a shit about the community.

MisterPerson wrote:You're not helping your case when the best you can do is "a small chunk of posts wasn't shitposting".

I would like somewhere to talk about FNRs and maybe shitpost.

Aurx · Post by **Aurx** » Tue May 06, 2014 8:28 pm #4097

Psyentific wrote:
Hornygranny wrote:This is a good opportunity to remind you that the forum is a service for the game, and not the other way around. FNR exists solely so we can handle administrative issues. If the rest of the forum dies because there's no stenography, I absolutely do not care.
Do you not give a shit about the community? Because posting that sounds like you don't give a shit about the community.

It sounds to me like he doesn't care about the forum community. I don't see any reason he should have to care about the forum community. I sure as hell don't.

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Tue May 06, 2014 8:42 pm #4098

Aurx wrote:
Psyentific wrote:
Hornygranny wrote:This is a good opportunity to remind you that the forum is a service for the game, and not the other way around. FNR exists solely so we can handle administrative issues. If the rest of the forum dies because there's no stenography, I absolutely do not care.
Do you not give a shit about the community? Because posting that sounds like you don't give a shit about the community.
It sounds to me like he doesn't care about the forum community. I don't see any reason he should have to care about the forum community. I sure as hell don't.

The forum community is composed almost entirely of your core players - The ones who care enough to register, come here semi-often, and post about spacemen with like-minded people. If there's one subset of the playerbase you should give a shit about, it's this one.

If you don't give a shit about the community, why are you here? Why are you going out of your way to administrate and moderate it? Why would you take time and effort to code something for people that you don't care about?

Hornygranny · Post by **Hornygranny** » Tue May 06, 2014 9:04 pm #4100

I don't agree at all. Historically, the most active forum users were the ones who did not really play the game. One of the most vocal users had played the game less than 30 times, and hadn't connected for weeks. Even if the forum is now comprised of the diehard players, it doesn't change my opinion. Nobody is going to stop playing the game because they don't have stenography. The game is the community, and what serves the game serves the community.

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Tue May 06, 2014 9:15 pm #4107

No, the community isn't going to magically die because we don't have somewhere to shitpost. That was someone else arguing the extreme.
I still want Steno back, though - There's a niche here that isn't being filled. There's discussion to be had that isn't being had. Me, and a lot of other people, have things to say and no place to say them. Yeah, you can point to /tg/ proper, but really we shouldn't be bringing tangentally related drama onto /tg/ proper unless there's already an SS13 thread up, and even then. You can point to singulo.io, but singulo is so slow that there's been no posts in the last twelve hours. A first-party place really is better than all the alternatives, and, since you've got a list of people who wanted to be dedicated stenography mods, you really have nothing to lose.

420goslingboy69 · Tue May 06, 2014 10:11 pm

I do not understand why having Stenography is a bad thing. Why the adamanc-y on such a frivolous thing if it's wanted by the forum community?

Brotemis · Post by **Brotemis** » Tue May 06, 2014 10:34 pm #4120

It was a cesspool of shit that spewed nothing but venom. It's been said multiple times that there won't be a stenography and you keep asking.

It's time to come to terms with reality.

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Tue May 06, 2014 10:36 pm #4121

Brotemis wrote:It was a cesspool of shit that spewed nothing but venom. It's been said multiple times that there won't be a stenography and you keep asking.

It's time to come to terms with reality.

Psyentific wrote:since you've got a list of people who wanted to be dedicated stenography mods, you really have nothing to lose.

Brotemis · Post by **Brotemis** » Tue May 06, 2014 10:47 pm #4123

Again, reality check.

If you're moderating and cleaning up a pile of shit...

It's still a pile of shit.

Stephie · Post by **Stephie** » Tue May 06, 2014 10:54 pm #4125

No, it was not a cesspool of shit that spewed nothing but venom. It also was not a pile of shit.

There, an all around better and otherwise superior counterargument.

Also, now may be a good time to remind you that you can shitpost and spew venom on any subforum, it's not some innate magical property that's somehow unique to peanuts.

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Tue May 06, 2014 11:01 pm #4126

Brotemis wrote:Again, reality check.

If you're moderating and cleaning up a pile of shit...

It's still a pile of shit.

The solution to venomous shitposting is Moderation - Keeping the board on its original purpose, the threads on topic, and the shitposters in check. I'm trying to tell you that you've got the solution to the main reason Steno's gone - Heck, you've got it in spades. I'd step forward if nobody else did, because by this point I'm one of the most persistent advocates of bringing back steno. I even think I'd do a pretty good job of it, too.

Oh, check this out.

scaredofshadows wrote:Is there a way we can allow uninvolved parties to comment in a different subforum without causing confusion?

Players who want to comment in constructive ways should be given such an outlet. Even players who simply wish to add their agreement or disagreement with a ban or decision should have some way to do so.

"Is there a way we can bring back steno?" - scaredofshadows.

Apsis · Post by **Apsis** » Wed May 07, 2014 12:05 am #4141

A place to discuss bans has always been good. The fuck is wrong with that? If you can't trust people to be civil with moderation present then why even have policy, code, and general game discussions?

Brotemis wrote:It was a cesspool of shit that spewed nothing but venom.

Steno didn't even do that. Most of the venom came from other parts of the forums a lot more. If anything steno was really slow. Remember that thread about you? Where was it? Not steno.
Though I'm sure once we get one of those bans we can use the policy discussion forums instead. While we can't talk about the ban itself we can talk about policies related to it, and use it as a reference.

Post by **Jordie0608** » Wed May 07, 2014 4:58 am #4173

The 'Stenography Decision', as it's come to be known, has been discussed between myself, the other forum admins and #adminbus and it has been decided that; since the FNR boards are intended for the benefit of the administration team and how they wish to run proceedings is up to administrative policy decisions, the existence of stenography is a matter that will be decided by headmins. Furthermore this decision may be deferred until a new round of headmins are appointed by SoS so as to make the transition there more smooth.

I have also discussed with [rock] about the possibility of a 'trial run' for stenography to occur at some point in the future, however there is no guarantee if that will actually happen or not as it is naturally dependent on the decision made by headmins.

In the time being; as was suggested before, use http://singulo.io for all your anonymous discussion of whatever you want.

bandit · Post by **bandit** » Wed May 07, 2014 10:59 pm #4324

So why was Anon3 -- an admin -- trashed for saying he'll unban a guy when he gets home?

Ikarrus · Post by **Ikarrus** » Wed May 07, 2014 11:02 pm #4325

It was an imposter.

bandit · Post by **bandit** » Wed May 07, 2014 11:12 pm #4329

...well that's a good reason.

Helios127 · Post by **Helios127** » Fri May 16, 2014 11:22 pm #6368

So if players cant comment on bans, can the rule also stick to admins as well?

Because one thing I really hate seeing are admins dogpiling, each planning to outdo one another with a harsher punishment then the last

Pandarsenic · Post by **Pandarsenic** » Sat May 17, 2014 10:33 am #6462

Helios127 wrote:So if players cant comment on bans, can the rule also stick to admins as well?

Because one thing I really hate seeing are admins dogpiling, each planning to outdo one another with a harsher punishment then the last

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you link whatever you're referring to?

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Sat May 17, 2014 10:38 am #6463

Pandarsenic wrote:
Helios127 wrote:So if players cant comment on bans, can the rule also stick to admins as well?

Because one thing I really hate seeing are admins dogpiling, each planning to outdo one another with a harsher punishment then the last
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you link whatever you're referring to?

I think what he means is admins or moderators that aren't involved with the FNR are commenting on the FNR. So, say Brotemis bans someone, they appeal, brotemis comments, the guy comments, then Hornygranny comments. Assuming HG wasn't involved in the admin PMs or involved as a player, he shouldn't have commented and would thus be subject to FNR moderation same as anyone else.

Note that the names used here are examples; I'm pulling this off the top of my head, not being passive aggressive. Also note that headmins ought to not be exempt from this - Headmins ought to be requested as a second opinion, if at all needed. If I'm forced to lurk FNR, so should everyone else. Everyone else.

Pandarsenic · Post by **Pandarsenic** » Sat May 17, 2014 11:00 am #6464

Psyentific wrote:Also note that headmins ought to not be exempt from this - Headmins ought to be requested as a second opinion, if at all needed. If I'm forced to lurk FNR, so should everyone else. Everyone else.

pls

Deuryn · Post by **Deuryn** » Sat May 17, 2014 12:17 pm #6468

While I actually agree that admins should try to keep to their own threads and not butt into other's I'm not so sure about headmins. I personally think that headmins should be able to step in if they have something important to say, whether it be a ruling, or an interpretation. It allows us to communicate it with both admins and players simultaneously.

Brotemis · Post by **Brotemis** » Sat May 17, 2014 2:13 pm #6478

I'm going to disagree. Being mad about having your shitposting taken away is understandable, but making silly demands kind of only proves that you couldn't handle yourself.

There's no need for personal opinions, or outright ignorance from players who are not involved.

1) Access to server logs
2) Access to player notes
3) Database tools

These three alone are tools players don't have. Add in that of you think that all admins agree with each other, you're sorely mistaken

Helios127 · Post by **Helios127** » Sat May 17, 2014 9:17 pm #6533

This is about removing the ability to make a conscice post about why an admin should reconsider something shitposts. This is more of a tendancy for admins not involved with the ban to go "Oh yeah, hes a shitty player. Im adding 10 months to his probation" on top of whatever punishment they already had. If Errorage didn't delete the ban archive, I would list some examples of this happening.

As for Headmins being able to comment on bans and override punishments? No complaints there. They are the admins that overrule the lesser admins so I dont see any problem with this.

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Sat May 17, 2014 9:40 pm #6534

Brotemis wrote:There's no need for personal opinions, or outright ignorance from players who are not involved.

There's no need for personal opinions, or outright ignorance from admins who are not involved.

Aurx · Post by **Aurx** » Sat May 17, 2014 9:46 pm #6535

Psyentific wrote:
Brotemis wrote:There's no need for personal opinions, or outright ignorance from players who are not involved.
There's no need for personal opinions, or outright ignorance from admins who are not involved.

There's no need for personal opinions, or outright ignorance from ANYBODY who is not involved.

If an admin is shitposting, report it. If a player is shitposting, report it. If a moderator is shitposting, report it.

Pandarsenic · Post by **Pandarsenic** » Sat May 17, 2014 10:32 pm #6538

Helios127 wrote:This is about removing the ability to make a conscice post about why an admin should reconsider something shitposts. This is more of a tendancy for admins not involved with the ban to go "Oh yeah, hes a shitty player. Im adding 10 months to his probation" on top of whatever punishment they already had. If Errorage didn't delete the ban archive, I would list some examples of this happening.

I browsed the ban overview admin tool and found:
1 IC in OOC ban made a dayban for a bunch of repeated offenses, changed by Ikkarus
1 person failing a probation, changed by Scared of Shadows
1 ban duration being upped to perma for the guy making sec's life awful then lying about it in adminPMs while OOC in ICing, changed by HBL
1 ban duration upped to perma for onehumaning the AI and killing everyone as a nonantag, changed by Deuryn

This was in the last 1000 bans.

Even the incident with Elyina and Inti fighting over a ban's duration, which I'm sure is what you're referring to, isn't in that range of time.

There is, I think, a general sense of understanding that you may say to the banning admin that you think a punishment should be X or shouldn't be Y, you leave the actual ban in the hands of the admin if you are not actively pulling rank on them.

Honestly? If admins are disallowed from posting in the ban threads, it just makes it annoying and we have to tell useful information to them if we can catch them on IRC or Steam.

Aurx wrote:There's no need for personal opinions, or outright ignorance from ANYBODY who is not involved.

If an admin is shitposting, report it. If a player is shitposting, report it. If a moderator is shitposting, report it.

This is it, period. If there's USEFUL, IMMEDIATELY RELEVANT INFORMATION to be posted, it can be posted, regardless of who it is. If it's nothing more productive than "Stay bant" or "Get rekt" or garbage like that it's unacceptable from ANYONE, be it admin or player, involved or uninvolved, in any combination. Quality of post content is all that's important.

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Sat May 17, 2014 11:13 pm #6555

Pandarsenic wrote: This is it, period. If there's USEFUL, IMMEDIATELY RELEVANT INFORMATION to be posted, it can be posted, regardless of who it is. If it's nothing more productive than "Stay bant" or "Get rekt" or garbage like that it's unacceptable from ANYONE, be it admin or player, involved or uninvolved, in any combination. Quality of post content is all that's important.

This is a grey area post, kinda sorta. It's not related to the specific incident in question, but it provides context and shows that the behaviour in the ban request is not isolated, and that the player in question was misbehaving consistently and predictably over a period of time, enough to have a reputation for it. I never had logs, but I'd have posted them if I had them. I should not have recieved a warning for this post.

Pandarsenic · Post by **Pandarsenic** » Sat May 17, 2014 11:34 pm #6566

Established the terms of that gray area and when the line is has, in fact, been the whole point of this thread. Saying "If that's not on the allowed side of the line, headmins shouldn't be able to post to the thread either" isn't helping anything.

I personally think that's a borderline case but is on the right side of where the moderation line SHOULD BE but it's not on the right side of where it is and is being enforced as RIGHT NOW according to our current rules.

If Steno comes back, it won't be part of this thread's doing. This is to permit discussion of what qualifies as an "involved" post, but that has died down somewhat as I haven't seen many, maybe even any, 'borderline' posts like that. It's totally different from http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... =216#p2196 for instance.

I strongly believe that similar incidents should be considered relevant if:
1 They have details on names and events that can be confirmed by logs
2 They have a time listed that is specific to within a single day for log reference
3 The situation was not resolved or FNR'd elsewhere, particularly if it was because it was something that isn't FNR-worthy alone.
4 The situation actually happened

This opinion is not unanimous, however, and this thread provides a place for people to explain what they think is wrong about my reasoning.

Namely, 1 and 2 mean any non-lazy admin can confirm the story, 4 means it wasn't wildly skewed or otherwise unsuitable for use.

Point 3 of my suggestion, "The situation was not resolved or FNR'd elsewhere, particularly if it was because it was something that isn't FNR-worthy alone" is the most contentious and it's the one I'd like to explain here.

It means that if people come out of the woodworks with stories of similar behavior, we can prevent Rule-10-relevant situations from slipping through the cracks. Am I thinking of Bee York? Yes. Yes, I am. He was the ultimate example of someone who never should have been able to play on our servers as long as he did the way he did because he knew how to toe the line so that no single individual knew the full extent of his shit.

Some people are shit, but they're shit to small numbers of people at a time and never in huge ways, so that no single ban request against them can succeed.

Some people are good at this, others just haven't been caught yet. By allowing that specifically, we can establish when someone has a reputation based on actual facts and events (as established in parts 1, 2, and 4 of the proposed conditions for 'similar events') that tend to repeat themselves with different people rather than simply not being liked.

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Sat May 17, 2014 11:43 pm #6567

Pandarsenic wrote: I strongly believe that similar incidents should be considered relevant if:
1 They have details on names and events that can be confirmed by logs
2 They have a time listed that is specific to within a single day for log reference
3 The situation was not resolved or FNR'd elsewhere, particularly if it was because it was something that isn't FNR-worthy alone.
4 The situation actually happened

I agree completely. Does anyone not agree?

I'm fine with not shitposting in FNR - I'd like to, but we all agree that it's for the good of the board/administration that I don't. However, if I come out of the woodwork to say that someone's bad, here's when why what and how, I don't want to be subject to moderation. If my post contributes to a thread, be it for or against whatever case is being made, I don't want to be subject to moderation.

Brotemis · Post by **Brotemis** » Sun May 18, 2014 1:25 am #6583

The difference between bee York and now is that apparently they were terrible on other servers and we didn't really have any relationship with bay or vg. Now we have bay/vg admins as tg admins and even a few vice versa. Not just that but we're also very open with our information concerning notes, bans, iP's, CID's, etc with admins from other servers who reciprocate.

It's MUCH easier now with the tools we have than we had before. I remember as a trialmin asking for helpful yools/buttons that we some of us may take for granted now

Originally, trialmins couldn't access server logs or previous day logs. What we have right now is the near pinnacle of tools bar a few things. The difference between then and now is being able to recognize problem players like Bee York much more quickly.

As of late, my current primary target is Grey tiding assistants and bad security. Bad security is debateable as to what it actually is, but I think we can all recognize Grey tiding very easily

Hornygranny · Post by **Hornygranny** » Sun May 18, 2014 2:36 am #6591

Once again, people are worried about something that doesn't actually happen. The system works.

captain sawrge · Sun May 18, 2014 2:51 am

Hornygranny wrote:Once again, people are worried about something that doesn't actually happen. The system works.

wanna know what doesnt work
your brain

captain sawrge · Sun May 18, 2014 2:52 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bu ... ted_States

Aurx · Post by **Aurx** » Sun May 18, 2014 3:11 am #6597

Hornygranny wrote:Once again, people are worried about something that doesn't actually happen. The system works.

The current system hasn't been in place long enough for me to decisively say it does or does not work. How are you reaching the conclusion that it does?

Hornygranny · Post by **Hornygranny** » Sun May 18, 2014 3:45 am #6602

I was referring to the fear that admins would bandwagon people and give them longer bans. It doesn't happen.

Helios127 · Post by **Helios127** » Fri May 30, 2014 6:47 pm #9945

No, but admins do occasionally butt in when they have no buisness to.

http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=540
Here is an example of a post that would be deleated because it is a shitpost a very well crafted post that is off topic. Notice how it brings absolutly nothing to the table and that if Bropro was not an admin the post would be deleated. But he is, and it is off topic peanut gallerying.

My point is, admins should be subject to the same rules that players are when it comes to well crafted arguments for bans they are not involved with shitposts.

(The person I am looking at is Brotemis, btw.

Psyentific · Post by **Psyentific** » Fri May 30, 2014 6:59 pm #9946

Helios127 wrote:No, but admins do occasionally butt in when they have no buisness to.

http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=540
Here is an example of a post that would be deleated because it is a shitpost a very well crafted post that is off topic. Notice how it brings absolutly nothing to the table and that if Bropro was not an admin the post would be deleated. But he is, and it is off topic peanut gallerying.

My point is, admins should be subject to the same rules that players are when it comes to well crafted arguments for bans they are not involved with shitposts.

(The person I am looking at is Brotemis, btw.

Another example would be CreationPro, here - It really irks me when unrelated admins post in my FNR, especially if it's contributing nothing to the discussion aside from "Yeah, I agree with this". If the admin involved asks for you to post in the thread, please say so. Otherwise, fuck off.

Helios127 · Post by **Helios127** » Fri May 30, 2014 7:40 pm #9952

Creationpros post actually contributes though. Brotemius on the other hand literally only said "I AGREE WITH BOTH BANS!"

CP (oh god I just got that) posted why both should stick. Now I disagree with the ban altogether butI cant say it. Brotemis on the other hand can say "YEP BOTH BANS SHOULD STICK!"

and honestly, if this continues I do actually forsee admins trying to one up eatch other by increasing bantimes. Banned for a few minutes for IC in OOC and decided to report it? Well SHITMIN X didnt like it and decided to increase your ban for a whole week. PROBLEM OFFICER?

Brotemis · Post by **Brotemis** » Sat May 31, 2014 5:25 am #10056

I wasn't even going to comment on this but it shows how hilariously bad your arguments and ideas are. You missed (ignored) subtle 's post.

Helios127 · Post by **Helios127** » Sat May 31, 2014 1:51 pm #10209

Brotemis wrote:I wasn't even going to comment on this but it shows how hilariously bad your arguments and ideas are. You missed (ignored) subtle 's post.

Subtles post first off contributes greatly to the thread, detailing in great detail why he applied the ban and why it should stick. Not "Oh, I agree with this ban!". Its not an us vs them thing, but I have rarely seen admins rush to the sides of players by default on issues like this.

Brotemis · Post by **Brotemis** » Sat May 31, 2014 6:45 pm #10290

Helios127 wrote:
Brotemis wrote:I wasn't even going to comment on this but it shows how hilariously bad your arguments and ideas are. You missed (ignored) subtle 's post.
Subtles post first off contributes greatly to the thread, detailing in great detail why he applied the ban and why it should stick. Not "Oh, I agree with this ban!". Its not an us vs them thing, but I have rarely seen admins rush to the sides of players by default on issues like this.

Subtle wrote:I've asked them to weigh in with their opinions because I don't make a habit of keeping IRC logs. Better from the horse's mouth as they say.

Subtle wrote:I've asked them to weigh in with their opinions because I don't make a habit of keeping IRC logs. Better from the horse's mouth as they say.

Helios127 · Post by **Helios127** » Sun Jun 01, 2014 3:21 am #10407

Yeah, he said that. I personally take it to mean "I asked the person who Psyintific brutally murdered" rather then "I asked admins unrelated to this to dogpile" but whatever.