sirnat wrote:What are your views on the largely talked about, ERP ban?
I disagree with the ERP ban.
What would you change the antagonist percentages too?
I think they've been raised back from whatever they'd been lowered to, so they're mostly fine.
Would you make a change to how ban appeals and requests were watched over? This meaning, that they don't go days without an admin posting, or the ban requested person allowed to just not post in because they're lazy.
Ban appeals seem to be handled in a pretty timely manner considering how important the input of the banning admin is. Alternatively, you always have the option to appeal bans in #supportbus, which is generally faster.
A ban request will move a little more slowly until an admin takes interest in it, but considering they're more of a last resort (handling things in-game is always better) and there are relatively few of them, I don't think there's a particular need to improve on the framework.
From the earlier question, if a person is ban requested do you believe they should be forced to defend themselves and not play it off as a joke?
You shouldn't have to defend yourself, but you should at least be obligated to give your side of the story. It's up to the admin handling the request to decide if the issue is actionable and if so how it should be acted on. People generally will defend themselves in such requests because they can both communicate directly with each other, as opposed to in-game where they only communicate to the responding admin, but your only obligations should be to say what you did/why you did it and answer any questions the admin asks, just like you would if they pm'd you in game.
Would you attempt to make any changes to how staff effected ingame play?
For the most part, I think it's working pretty smoothly right now. Admins aren't constantly hijacking rounds for their super !!!fun!!! gimmicks, which is generally the most problematic way they can affect in-game play. You still do see TC trades and the like, and while they do change the round they don't often ruin it.
Would you change the ability for Sec to obtain Valids without captains authorization for execution?
Policy wise, no. Disobeying the chain of command is definitely a thing, but it is and should remain an IC issue. If you killed some guy the captain said not to, as long as you had sufficient justification to kill him there's no reason for admins to get involved. Of course, the captain should be free to demote you or punish you if he really needed the dude alive.
Would you be in favor of more strict security lethal rules?
I think our current security rule, that security is expected to use nonlethal methods when reasonably possible, is fine.