/tg/Station 13

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

wanna know what doesnt work
your brain

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Player opinion can be a good thing, nobody is fucking denying this, but steno and its eventual removal as well as the new rules were the result of rampant fucking mini-moderator shitposting in appeals and ban requests. Self important people who think their opinion is better than an admin's, and regardless of whether it was or not, spent 2-3 pages arguing about administrative policy like whiny children with way too much free time. This shit was never, ever constructive to bans, usually made appeals and ban requests take longer to process, and is not missed by any actual admins who deal with FNR on a daily basis as far as I can tell.

paprika wrote:Player opinion can be a good thing, nobody is fucking denying this, but steno and its eventual removal as well as the new rules were the result of rampant fucking mini-moderator shitposting in appeals and ban requests. Self important people who think their opinion is better than an admin's, and regardless of whether it was or not, spent 2-3 pages arguing about administrative policy like whiny children with way too much free time. This shit was never, ever constructive to bans, usually made appeals and ban requests take longer to process, and is not missed by any actual admins who deal with FNR on a daily basis as far as I can tell.

Yeah, I'm also glad this was totally exclusive to people posting in ban threads and steno. Hehaho.

http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=733

Can admins please refraim from stenography shitposting making unconstructive posts which are also shitposts posting nonsense in threads? It was the reason why steno was created (Well, for players, not admins) and likewise why it was removed. I would like to see admins held to a higher standerd more often.

Minor complaint tho.

paprika wrote:Player opinion can be a good thing, nobody is fucking denying this, but steno and its eventual removal as well as the new rules were the result of rampant fucking mini-moderator shitposting in appeals and ban requests. Self important people who think their opinion is better than an admin's, and regardless of whether it was or not, spent 2-3 pages arguing about administrative policy like whiny children with way too much free time. This shit was never, ever constructive to bans, usually made appeals and ban requests take longer to process, and is not missed by any actual admins who deal with FNR on a daily basis as far as I can tell.

>
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=756
your whole contribution to this thread has been shitty backdoor moderating

the hypocrisy bleaches your whole post tbh

paprika youre seriously such a minimod that you think youre the only person who should be allowed to minimod

I see literally nothing wrong with people who watched events go down in ghost or what have you contributing to ban requests or appeals, that's already stated in the rules as an okay thing to do, the problem is people who would skim the first post and shit out something retarded, usually making themselves look like an asshole and making the entire thread a lot more confusing because a) they weren't even in the server at the time and b) think their opinion is the freshest amount of shit that they have to post in every thread ever. EVERYONE knows that was a problem. It became fucking second nature to a lot of people, including me, and generally didn't contribute fucking anything to FNR.

Sorry you never got to be an admin miggles but you don't have to take it out on me.

ColonicAcid wrote: your whole contribution to this thread has been shitty backdoor moderating

the hypocrisy bleaches your whole post tbh

If posting my opinion on a situation that I personally saw go down when there was no admins around is mini-modding then well fuck me I'm just a big hypocrite lol!

Mini modding is, like I said, opening up FNR to post in ban appeals/requests that you did not see go down just so you can either make yourself look like the baron of server policy or admin etiquette or defend your retarded friend when an admin tries to slap them with a ban. It encouraged people flooding to threads to bandwagon hate on admins and players, too.

Pretending that it wasn't an issue or that I'm some kind of hypocrite for doing something completely the opposite of it in a thread makes you look like complete fucking uninformed retard so good job if that was your plan.

paprika wrote:Sorry you never got to be an admin miggles but you don't have to take it out on me.

this is funny because neerti offered to admintrain me and i declined

paprika wrote:I see literally nothing wrong with people who watched events go down in ghost or what have you contributing to ban requests or appeals, that's already stated in the rules as an okay thing to do, the problem is people who would skim the first post and shit out something retarded, usually making themselves look like an asshole and making the entire thread a lot more confusing because a) they weren't even in the server at the time and b) think their opinion is the freshest amount of shit that they have to post in every thread ever. EVERYONE knows that was a problem. It became fucking second nature to a lot of people, including me, and generally didn't contribute fucking anything to FNR.

Sorry you never got to be an admin miggles but you don't have to take it out on me.

ColonicAcid wrote: your whole contribution to this thread has been shitty backdoor moderating

the hypocrisy bleaches your whole post tbh

If posting my opinion on a situation that I personally saw go down when there was no admins around is mini-modding then well fuck me I'm just a big hypocrite lol!

Yes it is good job on knowing what mini modding is.
Some quotes if you will.

paprika wrote:Absolutely unacceptable, under no circumstances is releasing aliens in xenobio as a non-antag outside of an admin event okay. Ever.

replace that with an admin name and it sounds 100% like something they would say.
weird right?

How keen of you to notice that I reiterated server policy in leiu of an actual admin doing it, nowhere did I say that was mini modding. Cherry picking to try and make me look like a hypocrite just makes you look even worse here CA, just stop.

reiterating policy is being a backdoor moderator you butt.

Saying obvious things everyone knows just to look like the supreme policy knight is simply minimodding.
But, the outcome of the thread wasn't changed so big whoop.

If you look up 'minimod' the definition is - "See paprika"

I was better at it, more of a megamod, but they removed the section of the forum where it was allowed. Now everything is ruined.