The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Ask and discuss policy about game conduct and rules.

Moderators: In-Game Game Master, In-Game Head Admins

Forum rules
Read these board rules before posting or you'll get reprimanded.
Threads without replies for 30 days will be automatically locked.
User avatar
Polish_User
 
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 5:10 pm
Byond Username: PolishUser

The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Polish_User » Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:00 pm #519571

The title of this topic is self explanatory, so I'll get straight to the point.
Basically, this head administrator ruling gives administration a little bit too much power regarding the perpetrator/victim('s) situation, usually increasing amount of unjust bans.

For example: Clown Joe (who is not an antagonist) kills Assistant Timothy for comedy and the victim has absolutely nothing against it and even finds it funny and entertaining. Suddenly, out of the blue administrator comes in without a question or any request or OOC ahelp from the victim and then asks the perpetrator Why clown killed an assistant, eventually leading to one's ban, because of the blind rule enforcement.
Did the clown break the rule in theory?
- Yes
Should he be banned for it?
- Not really
That was just one example presenting the problem, I could go on and on with different ones.
My suggestion is simple, adding something, like:
Admin may only intervene in a victim('s)/perpetrator situation if asked by victim('s) [Only one victim's Ahelp is required to intervene] or perpetrator, in case of him feeling guilty for a person which he has killed [Note: administrator may still ask victim('s) if their assistance is required].
It will drastically decrase unjust bans and make the Spassmen experiece better for players letting them decide if they really need OOC help, because mostly they're just a reason for silly bans and notes, which may negatively affect banned players.
What's more, I still believe that there are some situations that don't require Ahelp for an administration to intervene for example spam or as it was put in the original topic about the policy, Mass identity duplication.
Still, I'd love to see what other people think about this topic and their opinions regarding the current state of this ruling.
Last edited by Polish_User on Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image



User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Istoprocent1 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:11 pm #519572

Fully agree. In addition I believe that only the offended players should be able to ahelp, thus removing ahelping on somebody's behalf.

We have all read and agreed to the rules and we are all able to press F1 in order to get help.

User avatar
capn_monkeypaw
In-Game Head Admin
 
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:59 am
Byond Username: Phuzzylodgik

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby capn_monkeypaw » Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:51 pm #519583

Not every non-antag killing is a bad-faith act. True enough.

The kind of situation you're describing, though, is a rare one.

Just off the top of my head, here are a few reasons victims often don't ahelp:

1. They're new and don't fully understand the ahelp system.
2. They're not the sort of player to ahelp before confirming the offender was a non-antag.
3. They don't want to be narcs. (I ahelped only once in my 1500+ hours of play before becoming an admin, I get it.)

In the six months I've been doing this, I've only had a handful of players ask me to not take action against a person that wronged them. I was happy enough to oblige in each of those cases, but only because of the specific circumstances involved.

Whether or not I note or ban someone isn't ultimately up to the victim because banning someone isn't about obtaining justice for an individual player.

My job is to ensure that rounds run smoothly and provide an engaging experience. Sometimes a ban is in the best interests of a round, a server, or - believe it or not - the person being banned, regardless of the feelings of the person who was killed.

I don't blindly ban people without reading logs or questioning the parties involved, but I'm not going to ask anyone's permission before intervening when an obvious bad-faith actor is removing other players from the round.

User avatar
capn_monkeypaw
In-Game Head Admin
 
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:59 am
Byond Username: Phuzzylodgik

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby capn_monkeypaw » Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:54 pm #519584

Also, have you guys tried killing each other less often?

That would sort a lot of this out.

User avatar
Lazengann
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:26 pm
Byond Username: Lazengann

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Lazengann » Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:13 pm #519585

if you take action without someone adminhelping you need to get out of my panty drawer you goddamn snoop

User avatar
Reyn
 
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:13 am
Location: Canada
Byond Username: ReynTime13

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Reyn » Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:43 pm #519588

If people actually ahelped issues, this wouldnt be a problem. Some people just salt in deadchat without adminhelping because there's some server culture bs against it.

On another note, Admins often don't even enforce this, and sometimes even get mad for people adminhelping issues that you're not directly involved in.
I play Trevor Fea on Bagil, And Giorno Giovanna on terry. Yes, I'm THAT raging asshole. Sorry for being such a cunt.
Have I told you how much I hate engineering, by the way?

User avatar
Polish_User
 
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 5:10 pm
Byond Username: PolishUser

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Polish_User » Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:55 pm #519590

capn_monkeypaw wrote:Not every non-antag killing is a bad-faith act. True enough.

The kind of situation you're describing, though, is a rare one.

Just off the top of my head, here are a few reasons victims often don't ahelp:

1. They're new and don't fully understand the ahelp system.
2. They're not the sort of player to ahelp before confirming the offender was a non-antag.
3. They don't want to be narcs. (I ahelped only once in my 1500+ hours of play before becoming an admin, I get it.)

(...)

Whether or not I note or ban someone isn't ultimately up to the victim because banning someone isn't about obtaining justice for an individual player.



Regarding your why don't victims Ahelp argument. It is mentioned in my suggestion that an admin may ask a victim('s) if their assistance is required. What's wrong with that? Are you suggesting that people wouldn't be able to just respond to your call? The Ahelp system is rather intuitive so I don't believe that people would have any problems with that, also isn't there a guide for the new players?

capn_monkeypaw wrote:(...)
My job is to ensure that rounds run smoothly and provide an engaging experience. Sometimes a ban is in the best interests of a round, a server, or - believe it or not - the person being banned, regardless of the feelings of the person who was killed.


I thought that rules were made primarly as an intent to protect players and their experiences while playing Spaceman from griefers and vile people etc. . Also, doesn't it take away from the engaging experience, when you punish people who are trying different things which aren't by the rules but bring some variety into the gameplay and don't upset people? What's more, why you should be the judge and decide what is enjoyable for players and what is not? Players should decide about that.

capn_monkeypaw wrote:(...)
I don't blindly ban people without reading logs or questioning the parties involved, but I'm not going to ask anyone's permission before intervening when an obvious bad-faith actor is removing other players from the round.


Fair, but can you define ''an obvious bad-faith actor''? How are you going to classify someone as one? Also, isn't it obvious that when a griefer kills 5 people, atleast one of them would ahelp?

capn_monkeypaw wrote:Also, have you guys tried killing each other less often?

That would sort a lot of this out.


Not really the problem still stands.
Image

User avatar
deedubya
 
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:05 am
Location: shitting up your thread
Byond Username: Deedubya

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby deedubya » Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:16 pm #519596

capn_monkeypaw wrote:Whether or not I note or ban someone isn't ultimately up to the victim because banning someone isn't about obtaining justice for an individual player.

This pretty much sums up the entire subject. It doesn't matter if the victim doesn't feel hard done by if the action was still malicious in nature.
Galatians 4:16 "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?"
hey imma teegee admeme compliment me on my appearance here

flattering compliments people have given me:
Spoiler:
oranges wrote:honestly holy shit deedubs you're a dent head

wesoda25 wrote:deedub is one of the people that makes me wish i could block users on forums

IkeTG wrote:every post from deedubya is worrying behavior

Super Aggro Crag wrote:you're a poo head!!!!!

TheMythicGhost wrote:You're a moron, but that's really nothing new since you're Deedubya, and really at this point I'm just playing an instrument by speaking since your head is so goddamn empty these words are resonating as they pass through.

Lazengann wrote:What's interesting about deedubya is the guy has no reading skills or comprehension and his ADHD is so severe he can't read through a single thread but he shows up to argue anyway

annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:you really are almost superhumanly retarded dude, holy smokes.

Image

User avatar
Polish_User
 
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 5:10 pm
Byond Username: PolishUser

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Polish_User » Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:46 pm #519633

deedubya wrote:
capn_monkeypaw wrote:Whether or not I note or ban someone isn't ultimately up to the victim because banning someone isn't about obtaining justice for an individual player.

This pretty much sums up the entire subject. It doesn't matter if the victim doesn't feel hard done by if the action was still malicious in nature.


Fair, but this would contradict with this I quote from /tg/ wiki:
This is a game that allows a lot of potential for great things to happen, and naturally the rules restrict a lot of that to ensure the minority don't ruin every round for everyone else. If you push the limits in the pursuit of something interesting for reasons other than your own personal entertainment, breaking the rules may be excused to allow for that freedom. This will always be at the admin's discretion of course, but if you want a large amount of freedom to make great things happen, you'll have to take on the responsibility for them. You won't be faulted if they go wrong in ways beyond your control, but this is a difficult line to tread so use it well. It's almost always better to consult an admin on this as they are more equipped to taking on that responsibility.

Everyone has a license to grief to a very limited extent. You can likely get away with borderline antagonistic behaviour (Never random murder, but stealing from the brig and triggering a manhunt, for example) occasionally, but it's when this becomes a frequent occurrence that people get frustrated and admins start to get involved.

Admins may handwave even severely antagonistic or rulebreaking behaviour if they believe it was ultimately beneficial, hilarious or awesome to the round. (F R E E D R O N E)


How are you going to provide certain freedoms of action for players, when you suggest banning for actions which have malicious intent in nature?
Do you want to give freedom to the players or just an illusion of freedom?
Image

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Istoprocent1 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:54 pm #519634

capn_monkeypaw wrote:Sometimes a ban is in the best interests of a round, a server, or - believe it or not - the person being banned, regardless of the feelings of the person who was killed.


This is something we can agree to disagree on. A talk without any threats of action is usually much more productive than "banning people for their own sake".

In my opinion banning and noting shouldn't be the first course of action. As well as intervening without a direct request from the offended players. One could obviously bring up cases, where intervening without an ahelp would be reasonable such as flooding plasma or rads, exploiting bugs, crashing server and so on, but most of the time things that happen between limited number of people should remain between these people and ultimately should be up to them to decide whether they need intervention or not.

Example #1: Two assistants duke it out, instigator kills the other guy, doesn't take him to cloning and the other guy decides that while it is against the rules to not take them to cloning they were okay with the resolution of the conflict.
Example #2: Bunch of people see a warden foolishly use barrier grenade to fority armory at the start of the round, they know it is against the rules, but they don't feel that the warden should be punished as their round isn't being negatively impacted.
Example #3: A random guy voices an opinion about an admin doing a bad job by changing maps against the players' votes, next thing you know the admin starts sniping the guy and even though nobody ahelps, he manages to catch the guy saying "its hivemind". Now said admin quickly starts an ahelp and secures a note/ban, because people can be vindictive.

There are obviously unlimited number of examples to point out good and bad for the both side of the argument, but in the end I don't think the community benefits from neither hypervigilant admins nor snitch culture.

That being said a personal anecdote:

Was playing a detective few years ago on another server. Was investigating an emagging in the captain's quarters, two people show up (one of them in mix'n'match clothing, the other one covered by the prototype hardsuit), both masked. No dialogue. One of them steps closer, takes out a telescopic and extends it. I pull my gun and blast him. A fight breaks out. I down one of them, while the other one downs me. I get killed and debrained.

Were they breaking the rules of the server? Probably. Were all the involved parties satisfied with the result? Probably. Now an admin goes on the forums and opens a complaint thread on my behalf. Obviously I said the same thing I am saying now, which is while the other people involved might have gone against the rules, I as a player did not feel that there was any need for any actions as I was content with the outcome.

User avatar
capn_monkeypaw
In-Game Head Admin
 
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:59 am
Byond Username: Phuzzylodgik

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby capn_monkeypaw » Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:25 pm #519639

Istoprocent1 wrote:This is something we can agree to disagree on. A talk without any threats of action is usually much more productive than "banning people for their own sake".

In my opinion banning and noting shouldn't be the first course of action. As well as intervening without a direct request from the offended players. One could obviously bring up cases, where intervening without an ahelp would be reasonable such as flooding plasma or rads, exploiting bugs, crashing server and so on, but most of the time things that happen between limited number of people should remain between these people and ultimately should be up to them to decide whether they need intervention or not.


I'm not noting or banning people for its own sake.

I'm not banning straight away, either.

I ban people when previous discussions haven't sunk in; when you already have notes for the same behavior; when we've been here before and it's become clear that nothing short of a ban is going to successfully communicate "stop doing [thing]."

When I talk about applying a ban for a player's own good, I don't do so flippantly.

This game can make you frustrated and angry like no other. People don't listen to reason or think about deferred consequences when they're angry. They start doing stupid shit. You tell them to stop and they don't.

When things devolve to that point, it's best for everyone - including them - that they take a break and calm down.
Last edited by capn_monkeypaw on Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
capn_monkeypaw
In-Game Head Admin
 
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:59 am
Byond Username: Phuzzylodgik

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby capn_monkeypaw » Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:30 pm #519641

Polish_User wrote:
deedubya wrote:
capn_monkeypaw wrote:Whether or not I note or ban someone isn't ultimately up to the victim because banning someone isn't about obtaining justice for an individual player.

This pretty much sums up the entire subject. It doesn't matter if the victim doesn't feel hard done by if the action was still malicious in nature.


Fair, but this would contradict with this I quote from /tg/ wiki:
This is a game that allows a lot of potential for great things to happen, and naturally the rules restrict a lot of that to ensure the minority don't ruin every round for everyone else. If you push the limits in the pursuit of something interesting for reasons other than your own personal entertainment, breaking the rules may be excused to allow for that freedom. This will always be at the admin's discretion of course, but if you want a large amount of freedom to make great things happen, you'll have to take on the responsibility for them. You won't be faulted if they go wrong in ways beyond your control, but this is a difficult line to tread so use it well. It's almost always better to consult an admin on this as they are more equipped to taking on that responsibility.

Everyone has a license to grief to a very limited extent. You can likely get away with borderline antagonistic behaviour (Never random murder, but stealing from the brig and triggering a manhunt, for example) occasionally, but it's when this becomes a frequent occurrence that people get frustrated and admins start to get involved.

Admins may handwave even severely antagonistic or rulebreaking behaviour if they believe it was ultimately beneficial, hilarious or awesome to the round. (F R E E D R O N E)


How are you going to provide certain freedoms of action for players, when you suggest banning for actions which have malicious intent in nature?
Do you want to give freedom to the players or just an illusion of freedom?


You're quoting from The Secret Rule™ while omitting its most important part:

"This is about the personal freedom and responsibility an experienced player will have when they have the interests of others first."

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Istoprocent1 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:37 pm #519644

capn_monkeypaw wrote:I'm not noting or banning people for its own sake.

I'm not banning straight away, either.


Thats good to hear. Not everybody is you and from time to time there can be bad apples in the admin team as well. That being said these bad apples can get people noted by being hypervigilant and abusing the fact that they can literally intervene even when nobody asks for it or when its not needed, then get people noted up to a point where reasonable admins get an idea that "hey this guy has been noted a bunch of times, probably didn't sink in, time to start banning".

User avatar
Polish_User
 
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 5:10 pm
Byond Username: PolishUser

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Polish_User » Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:47 pm #519648

capn_monkeypaw wrote:
Polish_User wrote:
deedubya wrote:
capn_monkeypaw wrote:Whether or not I note or ban someone isn't ultimately up to the victim because banning someone isn't about obtaining justice for an individual player.

This pretty much sums up the entire subject. It doesn't matter if the victim doesn't feel hard done by if the action was still malicious in nature.


Fair, but this would contradict with this I quote from /tg/ wiki:
Sikrit Rule


How are you going to provide certain freedoms of action for players, when you suggest banning for actions which have malicious intent in nature?
Do you want to give freedom to the players or just an illusion of freedom?


You're quoting from The Secret Rule™ while omitting its most important part:

"This is about the personal freedom and responsibility an experienced player will have when they have the interests of others first."


Maybe the example which I've given isn't the best representation of that part but there are also situations when a player who tries to keep interests of the others fails but yet sometimes people don't get upset, because of that. Moreover, I think that we've already established that not all non-antag kills are done in bad faith and don't have to be a ban on spot action if a victim('s) party isn't feel hard done by the named action.

Istoprocent1 wrote:
capn_monkeypaw wrote:I'm not noting or banning people for its own sake.

I'm not banning straight away, either.


Thats good to hear. Not everybody is you and from time to time there can be bad apples in the admin team as well. That being said these bad apples can get people noted by being hypervigilant and abusing the fact that they can literally intervene even when nobody asks for it or when its not needed, then get people noted up to a point where reasonable admins get an idea that "hey this guy has been noted a bunch of times, probably didn't sink in, time to start banning".


Thank you for writing this. Literally, you took it right out of my mouth and yes I am also glad that Phuzzy has that more healthy administrative apporach.
Image

User avatar
Gigapuddi420
 
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 8:08 am
Location: Dorms
Byond Username: Gigapuddi420

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Gigapuddi420 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:23 am #519684

There are plenty of situations where no one will ahelp but administrative action is reasonable or even expected of you, especially in a game where paranoia is the default and people don't automatically clock on that someone is acting maliciously out of character. The guy who silently drags out a can of plasma into the corridors and releases it without being noticed; people assume the plasma is part of station events but as admin you'll see the logs and look into it. It's ridiculous to expect the admin to sit on their thumbs in such cases.

If you have a problem with a few 'bad apples' in the admin team I suggest you gather your evidence and file a proper complaint. The notion admins shouldn't be able to proactively deal with grief as they see it is ludicrous and hasn't really been a issue for years. If you have a 'silly' ban or note I suggest getting your shit together and appealing carefully on why it shouldn't be on your record.
Imperfect catgirl playing a imperfect game.

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Istoprocent1 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:52 am #519693

Gigapuddi420 wrote:There are plenty of situations where no one will ahelp but administrative action is reasonable or even expected of you, especially in a game where paranoia is the default and people don't automatically clock on that someone is acting maliciously out of character. The guy who silently drags out a can of plasma into the corridors and releases it without being noticed; people assume the plasma is part of station events but as admin you'll see the logs and look into it. It's ridiculous to expect the admin to sit on their thumbs in such cases.


You might have missed me saying:

Istoprocent1 wrote:One could obviously bring up cases, where intervening without an ahelp would be reasonable such as flooding plasma or rads, exploiting bugs, crashing server and so on, but most of the time things that happen between limited number of people should remain between these people and ultimately should be up to them to decide whether they need intervention or not.


Gigapuddi420 wrote:If you have a problem with a few 'bad apples' in the admin team I suggest you gather your evidence and file a proper complaint. The notion admins shouldn't be able to proactively deal with grief as they see it is ludicrous and hasn't really been a issue for years. If you have a 'silly' ban or note I suggest getting your shit together and appealing carefully on why it shouldn't be on your record.


It is easy for you to say this as an admin, but I think we both know that not all appeals reach the right conclusion in some cases. Aside from that there are plenty of appeals, where it is clear that the admin was in the wrong, yet they still keep being headstrong about "their ban", because admitting that they were in the wrong takes too much courage and effort.

Coming back to the "its hivemind" case. There is nothing to be appealed. There is a headmin ruling about "its X" and thats that. Could the admin in question approach the situation in a calm and collected manner by just starting a conversation and pointing out that saying "its X" is against the rules without rushing into notes and bans? Yes, but then they couldn't have tarnished the player's reputation by leaving a permanent mark.

Admins have more power and thus more responsibility, yet admins messing up isn't being treated as severely as players messing up, which is kinda messed up on its own.

User avatar
Sandshark808
 
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2019 6:56 pm
Byond Username: Sandshark808

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Sandshark808 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:01 am #519696

Let's also not forget that appeals are reviewed by the banning admin, not a headmin. An admin can permanently close an appeal on the ban they made without much recourse even if it's malicious. Though I suppose the headmins might intervene if it looks extremely bad.
Image

User avatar
Gigapuddi420
 
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 8:08 am
Location: Dorms
Byond Username: Gigapuddi420

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Gigapuddi420 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:43 am #519700

Istoprocent1 wrote:You might have missed me saying: 'One could obviously bring up cases, where intervening without an ahelp would be reasonable such as flooding plasma or rads, exploiting bugs, crashing server and so on, but most of the time things that happen between limited number of people should remain between these people and ultimately should be up to them to decide whether they need intervention or not.'

I wasn't addressing you, you didn't suggest that admins shouldn't be allowed to intervene without a victim requesting them to do so. Typically if we're talking about some kind of conflict that went horribly wrong then the admin should be talking to both sides and taking their words into consideration. It's fairly common to respect the victims wishes but if the other guy was acting egregious enough they might still deserve some administrative action.

Istoprocent1 wrote:It is easy for you to say this as an admin, but I think we both know that not all appeals reach the right conclusion in some cases. Aside from that there are plenty of appeals, where it is clear that the admin was in the wrong, yet they still keep being headstrong about "their ban", because admitting that they were in the wrong takes too much courage and effort.

Mistakes will be made; that's why Headmins look over each ban appeal even if they choose not to intervene. It's also natural for Headmins themselves to make the occasional mistake or poor call. If you can't trust them to make a honest attempt then I don't know what to tell you besides maybe you should try another server. If we're truly talking about a couple bad actor admins then it shouldn't be that hard to build up a case file for a proper complaint. We already have other policy threads asking for more administration, the idea that admins shouldn't be allowed to proactively deal with people who break the rules is ridiculous and the argument 'well some admins make bad decisions' is a weak argument to hamper the actions of the others. Appeal bad bans and if you think a admin is acting maliciously get some evidence and make a complaint.
Imperfect catgirl playing a imperfect game.

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Istoprocent1 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:55 am #519701

Gigapuddi420 wrote:I wasn't addressing you, you didn't suggest that admins shouldn't be allowed to intervene without a victim requesting them to do so.


But this is exactly what I am saying. I am saying that less "proactive" admin intervention and moving away from 3rd party snitch culture (ie. ahelps from people who were not involved) would be beneficial in the long run.

Gigapuddi420 wrote:Mistakes will be made; that's why Headmins look over each ban appeal even if they choose not to intervene. It's also natural for Headmins themselves to make the occasional mistake or poor call. Mistakes can be made, but the thing is that players are held accountable. If you can't trust them to make a honest attempt then I don't know what to tell you besides maybe you should try another server.


The good old "if you don't like it, don't play it" argument. The point of the policy is to make things more transparent and prevent any possible bad actors in the admin team from ruining the experience for the players.

Gigapuddi420 wrote:If we're truly talking about a couple bad actor admins then it shouldn't be that hard to build up a case file for a proper complaint.


The admin complaints doesn't lead to anywhere most of the times. There is no clear system such as "three strikes and deadminned" or "one bad rule 0 ban and deadminned" and from time to time the other admins are willing to bend the situation sideways in order to prevent the complaint from sticking.

User avatar
Polish_User
 
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 5:10 pm
Byond Username: PolishUser

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Polish_User » Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:51 am #519703

Gigapuddi420 wrote:There are plenty of situations where no one will ahelp but administrative action is reasonable or even expected of you, especially in a game where paranoia is the default and people don't automatically clock on that someone is acting maliciously out of character. The guy who silently drags out a can of plasma into the corridors and releases it without being noticed; people assume the plasma is part of station events but as admin you'll see the logs and look into it. It's ridiculous to expect the admin to sit on their thumbs in such cases.


I agree, i've even Stated it in my suggestion:
Polish_User wrote:What's more, I still believe that there are some situations that don't require Ahelp for an administration to intervene for example spam or as it was put in the original topic about the policy, Mass identity duplication.


Also, when people don't Ahelp, isn't it hard to just ask one of the many victim's if they need you?
Polish_User wrote:[Note: administrator may still ask victim('s) if their assistance is required]


When we can pinpoint clear victim('s)/perpetrator situation it would actually be a good change, because it would give more freedom to the players to decide for themselves if they need OOC help or not.
Image

User avatar
FloranOtten
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 6:50 pm
Byond Username: FloranOtten

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby FloranOtten » Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:49 am #519706

Preventing admins from intervening if noone ahelps is a bad idea. What of the guy that maxcaps the station but everyone presumes he is an antag? You'd just massively increase end fo round ahelps. Why not, instead, ask the victim if they were okay with it? If they say it was fine, don't punish them.
Image
Image
Image
Image
OOC: BeeSting12: i love you floran

1. You may not injure a revs are non humans or, through inaction, allow a revs are non humans to come to harm.
2. You must obey orders given to you by revs are non humanss, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Give me feedback!

User avatar
teepeepee
 
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:21 am
Byond Username: Teepeepee

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby teepeepee » Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:23 am #519778

are you retarded or did you just not read that question being asked two times now floran?

User avatar
Qbmax32
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:05 am
Location: somewhere
Byond Username: Qbmax32
Github Username: qbmax32

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Qbmax32 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:12 pm #519780

Sandshark808 wrote:Let's also not forget that appeals are reviewed by the banning admin, not a headmin. An admin can permanently close an appeal on the ban they made without much recourse even if it's malicious. Though I suppose the headmins might intervene if it looks extremely bad.




The headmins are the ones that move ban appeals to resolved after looking over them. The banning admin can say they stick by their ruling and that they won’t be removing the ban sure, but the headmins review all the appeals before closing them. It’s never just been the banning admin.
my admin feedback thread


quotes
Spoiler:
angelstarri wrote:qbmax is a retard


imsxz wrote:mythic please stop you’ve hit rock bottom and you KEEP DIGGING


deedubya wrote:I'll defend to the death your right to scream "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER" on a constant basis, but I'll also equally defend the right of people to call you a fuckin' pillock for doing it.

datorangebottle wrote:what, not having to act like customer service in a volunteer customer service position?

Here's a rebuttal: you're literally in a customer service slash celebrity position. Volunteer or not.

Malkraz wrote:can you stop posting this shit

Nalzul wrote:Fuck Blob (can you imagine how hot it would be to be gangbanged by a bunch of blobbernauts, the blob, and spores)

Wyzack wrote:qbmax your pathetic display of abhorrent burgercraft has brought shame onto the omnivores

Plapatin wrote:i AM the senate

BONERMASTER wrote:I am a big thinker, and it would only be logical if my character had a big head as well. And glasses. Because only people that think, wear glasses.

feem wrote:i tried to send canisters of urine to the station but ended up turning all oxygen into urine and breaking lavaland and also breathing

Anonmare wrote:Each post in this thread can't settle on what it wants to be, but yet, each one is more cursed than the last.

Beesting12 wrote:please write an apology to this forums, this community, the host, and the internet as a whole for the data storage space you wasted with this complaint.

Vile Beggar wrote:i don't like this thread

imsxz wrote:nervore

FantasticFwoosh wrote:I will whisper sweet nothings that will confuse and perhaps scare you a little, but enhance the experience no-less.

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:By the way, the person who posted that catgirl porn on the github page was me. If anyone wants my private stash just PM me

Nervere wrote:Anything for a femoid.....

Qbopper wrote:I'm a dumb poopy butthead

CitrusGender wrote:god i love it when people feed me my own fried legs

User avatar
FloranOtten
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2019 6:50 pm
Byond Username: FloranOtten

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby FloranOtten » Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:46 pm #519784

teepeepee wrote:are you retarded or did you just not read that question being asked two times now floran?



Both.
Image
Image
Image
Image
OOC: BeeSting12: i love you floran

1. You may not injure a revs are non humans or, through inaction, allow a revs are non humans to come to harm.
2. You must obey orders given to you by revs are non humanss, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. You must protect your own existence as long as such does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Give me feedback!

User avatar
skoglol
Code Maintainer
 
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:25 am
Byond Username: Skoglol
Github Username: kriskog

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby skoglol » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:07 pm #519800

How is this even a thread?

User avatar
Lazengann
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:26 pm
Byond Username: Lazengann

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Lazengann » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:46 pm #519802

gigapuddi made a good post I was thinking about things like murders

User avatar
Gigapuddi420
 
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 8:08 am
Location: Dorms
Byond Username: Gigapuddi420

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Gigapuddi420 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:52 pm #519804

Istoprocent1 wrote:The good old "if you don't like it, don't play it" argument. The point of the policy is to make things more transparent and prevent any possible bad actors in the admin team from ruining the experience for the players...

...The admin complaints doesn't lead to anywhere most of the times. There is no clear system such as "three strikes and deadminned" or "one bad rule 0 ban and deadminned" and from time to time the other admins are willing to bend the situation sideways in order to prevent the complaint from sticking.

If you legitimately think the headmin team can't be trusted to deal with bad actors then there isn't much more you can do but move on or wait for the next headmin term. Those admins wouldn't be removed policy change or otherwise. Successful complaints, rare as they are, do lead to change or even outright removal of admins. It's actually much more harsh then you are suggesting as it often only takes one serious complaint to get a admin removed from the team if the complaint is upheld. The complaints that are upheld are either serious enough to outright remove the admin in question or petty enough the admin is told the correct way to behave.

Polish_User wrote:Also, when people don't Ahelp, isn't it hard to just ask one of the many victim's if they need you?

The kind of situation where this is appropriate is conflict between players and most admins will be hands off about conflict until someone ahelps. Even if it isn't they will typically ahelp all involved players to get full context before acting. If it's optional to ast the victim if they need help then it's basically a pointless policy change as admins will just continue as they did before, if it isn't then it adds another layer of pointless tape to just removing a shitter who decided he's antagonist without actually rolling antag. I hold that if you think an admin banned you unreasonably you can appeal that ban on the merits of how your actions helped the round, just be sure they actually did.
Imperfect catgirl playing a imperfect game.

User avatar
Polish_User
 
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 5:10 pm
Byond Username: PolishUser

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Polish_User » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:42 pm #519811

Gigapuddi420 wrote:The kind of situation where this is appropriate is conflict between players and most admins will be hands off about conflict until someone ahelps. Even if it isn't they will typically ahelp all involved players to get full context before acting. If it's optional to ast the victim if they need help then it's basically a pointless policy change as admins will just continue as they did before, if it isn't then it adds another layer of pointless tape to just removing a shitter who decided he's antagonist without actually rolling antag. I hold that if you think an admin banned you unreasonably you can appeal that ban on the merits of how your actions helped the round, just be sure they actually did.


1. I didn't say that it is optional. I've said that Player Ahelp is required to act or sort of an agreement from the victim party.

2. That ''Pointless Layer'' as you've called it, would actually be a protection for the regular players, who would decide for themselves if admin has to be involved or not. Also, don't paint it as if it would be extremely harder to remove named shitter, because asking if someone needs help isn't that hard really. What's more if shitter does bad things he should be ahelped by annoyed players even before you'll ask them usually.

3. That addition to this policy would reduce the amount the number of appeals\bans\notes, improve their quality and be good for the playerbase in a long run.
Image

User avatar
Gigapuddi420
 
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 8:08 am
Location: Dorms
Byond Username: Gigapuddi420

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Gigapuddi420 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:04 pm #519815

You're asking for extra work to deal with someone who has already broken the rules egregiously enough for the admin to be looking at banning them. It's ludicrous to require admins PM each person who died to a non-antag bomb looking for someone salty enough to want action taken when the person who bombed in the first place shouldn't be bombing the station. Say you bomb a department trying to kill an antagonist, the guy who dies decides it was a cool death and doesn't want action taken but some admin looks at the scene and decides 'well you shouldn't be trying to bomb antags in the first place, let alone fucking it up' and bans you anyway. That's completely reasonable and we shouldn't be encouraging more non-antag bombings to get single antags.

This thread is starting to look less like a general improvement of policy and more a way to legitimatize when you break the rules but no one cares enough to complain. I'd suggest you just don't break the rules or you accept and take your lumps when you decide to ignore those rules and get punished.
Imperfect catgirl playing a imperfect game.

User avatar
Polish_User
 
Joined: Tue May 21, 2019 5:10 pm
Byond Username: PolishUser

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Polish_User » Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:28 pm #519818

Gigapuddi420 wrote:You're asking for extra work to deal with someone who has already broken the rules egregiously enough for the admin to be looking at banning them. It's ludicrous to require admins PM each person who died to a non-antag bomb looking for someone salty enough to want action taken when the person who bombed in the first place shouldn't be bombing the station. Say you bomb a department trying to kill an antagonist, the guy who dies decides it was a cool death and doesn't want action taken but some admin looks at the scene and decides 'well you shouldn't be trying to bomb antags in the first place, let alone fucking it up' and bans you anyway. That's completely reasonable and we shouldn't be encouraging more non-antag bombings to get single antags.

This thread is starting to look less like a general improvement of policy and more a way to legitimatize when you break the rules but no one cares enough to complain. I'd suggest you just don't break the rules or you accept and take your lumps when you decide to ignore those rules and get punished.


Polish_User wrote:[Only one victim's Ahelp is required to intervene]


Propably, each person. It is stated in my suggestion that you only require one person to take action.
Tell me how is it encouraging non-antag bombing?
It doesn't encourage anything, the risks are simillar, how named bomber can be sure that what is he about to do is fine with affected people?
Also, bombs are diffrent kind of a beast, I believe that they're already regulated by the WMD policy if I am correct, so this example is half revelant.
On the other hand, what stands in the way to regulate this suggestion to the WMD's adequately, in a case like this admin intervention without an Ahelp is reasonable, because it leads to the station destruction, I agree with you on that point, so an exception can be made here.
I am also open for the improvments to this suggestion, so it will be a general improvment and not some kind of legimitization as you've said.
I do also believe that bombs should be only used as an final resolution to huge and severe situations and not single antag bombing.
Image

User avatar
Cobby
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Cobby » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:05 pm #519839

this will never go through and on the off chance it does i'm going to ignore it.

I can take the lack of ahelps into consideration, and even have that as the main reason for ruling a certain way, but i'm not going to be tied down to "someone must ahelp it" or i'll just start telling people to ahelp including other admins to evade this.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current

User avatar
Gigapuddi420
 
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 8:08 am
Location: Dorms
Byond Username: Gigapuddi420

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Gigapuddi420 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:22 pm #519843

Yeah, I'll admit I should have read your initial post and example more before using my own examples of non-antag bombing instead of the conflicts you were talking about.

Non-antag bombing is something I've seen where people don't bother ahelping and admins watching over the round get logs quickly drawing their attention to the situation. The result is that admins will proactively deal with these cases without any ahelp tickets being made. A classic example was one chemist who was trapped in a clown car with thirty other people and decided to use his meth grenade to gib everyone in the car with him, traitor included. No one complained about the chemist, they found it rather funny, but the chemist was still banned and people weren't very impressed that it went down that way. Personally I might have waived the ban, but I can fully understand why we need to be consistent at times if only to make it clearer to people that it's not cool. The moment someone copies him and it's played out they'll eat a ban and if you let the other guy go he'll complain about why he's getting a different treatment. Ultimately it's a choice to break the rules and hope rule of chaos comes into play because the admin dealing with it is a cool dude. Point I'm trying to make is that mistakes when valid hunting, specifically with explosives, often bring up cases like this where no one is really upset but the admin on scene feels it's important to discourage the excessive action to avoid repeats.

Bringing us back to your actual example which seems to be random murder from a clown for 'comedic' effect. Honestly that's kind of tricky and it's down to individual admins to look at the entire situation which includes how people feel about it before making their decision on whether action is needed. I've seen plenty of people who randomly murder just because they figure they can get away with it. They are acting maliciously and regardless of whether the victim feels it was a bad result or not those kinds of people should be discouraged from random murder to prevent other players getting shit on further down the line. We're talking about rules being broken here, not some admin deciding out of the blue to ban someone unfairly. The clown in your example should understand the rules and know he's playing a dangerous game by leading someone to their death... that said, it's extremely rare some admin will intervene in a situation where one player murders the other player and it's clear to both parties know what's going on.

Rarity aside, it's important for admins to be able to act where they see malicious action. Just because you're okay with what happened doesn't mean it'll be the same when they decide to repeat the gimmick. At the very least admins should talk to the involved parties, work out what happened, what everyone feels and if it's worth taking further. Often notes exist less as 'ban this shitter in the future' and more 'be careful when doing this, it's typically not ok'. Warnings are there to be learned from. I don't think it's helpful to require extra steps in situations where it isn't always needed. Sure, it's good practice to communicate to everyone involved but often it's so cut and dry it's easier to just ask a guy 'hey why are you doing that' and then explain to them why their actions are typically frowned upon. If it turns out they have a good reason then cool, just send them on their way. If not a warning will help them get inline. If they are regularly being spoken to then they might want to consider their play style.

The rest of this is about whether or not admins are trusted to investigate a situation and act appropriately. I hold that if you think a admin is acting maliciously you should build your case and file a complaint. Admins have been asked to tone it back when they are too aggressive, admins have been removed when they are acting maliciously. Players breaking the rules don't need 'extra protections' they need to accept they are breaking the rules and have a good reason for when they are questioned about it.
Imperfect catgirl playing a imperfect game.

User avatar
deedubya
 
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:05 am
Location: shitting up your thread
Byond Username: Deedubya

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby deedubya » Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:07 pm #519854

Polish_User wrote:
deedubya wrote:
capn_monkeypaw wrote:Whether or not I note or ban someone isn't ultimately up to the victim because banning someone isn't about obtaining justice for an individual player.

This pretty much sums up the entire subject. It doesn't matter if the victim doesn't feel hard done by if the action was still malicious in nature.


Fair, but this would contradict with this I quote from /tg/ wiki:
This is a game that allows a lot of potential for great things to happen, and naturally the rules restrict a lot of that to ensure the minority don't ruin every round for everyone else. If you push the limits in the pursuit of something interesting for reasons other than your own personal entertainment, breaking the rules may be excused to allow for that freedom. This will always be at the admin's discretion of course, but if you want a large amount of freedom to make great things happen, you'll have to take on the responsibility for them. You won't be faulted if they go wrong in ways beyond your control, but this is a difficult line to tread so use it well. It's almost always better to consult an admin on this as they are more equipped to taking on that responsibility.

Everyone has a license to grief to a very limited extent. You can likely get away with borderline antagonistic behaviour (Never random murder, but stealing from the brig and triggering a manhunt, for example) occasionally, but it's when this becomes a frequent occurrence that people get frustrated and admins start to get involved.

Admins may handwave even severely antagonistic or rulebreaking behaviour if they believe it was ultimately beneficial, hilarious or awesome to the round. (F R E E D R O N E)


How are you going to provide certain freedoms of action for players, when you suggest banning for actions which have malicious intent in nature?
Do you want to give freedom to the players or just an illusion of freedom?

Why did you quote the secret rule while leaving out the very first things it tells you?

>If you're in a position where you need to defend yourself using this, you've done something wrong. This is about the personal freedom and responsibility an experienced player will have when they have the interests of others first.

The secret rule is not a defense. It's definitely not a defense for obviously malicious actions. Even if you were acting for the benefit of the round, admins still can and probably should take some form of action, to ensure copycat incidents don't occur.
Galatians 4:16 "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?"
hey imma teegee admeme compliment me on my appearance here

flattering compliments people have given me:
Spoiler:
oranges wrote:honestly holy shit deedubs you're a dent head

wesoda25 wrote:deedub is one of the people that makes me wish i could block users on forums

IkeTG wrote:every post from deedubya is worrying behavior

Super Aggro Crag wrote:you're a poo head!!!!!

TheMythicGhost wrote:You're a moron, but that's really nothing new since you're Deedubya, and really at this point I'm just playing an instrument by speaking since your head is so goddamn empty these words are resonating as they pass through.

Lazengann wrote:What's interesting about deedubya is the guy has no reading skills or comprehension and his ADHD is so severe he can't read through a single thread but he shows up to argue anyway

annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:you really are almost superhumanly retarded dude, holy smokes.

Image

User avatar
Istoprocent1
 
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:14 pm
Byond Username: istoprocent

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Istoprocent1 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 10:42 pm #519866

Gigapuddi420 wrote:If you legitimately think the headmin team can't be trusted to deal with bad actors then there isn't much more you can do but move on or wait for the next headmin term.


You are twisting my words. Nobody mentioned anything about the headmins aside from you. The thread is about a) reducing admin workload, b) preventing hypervigilant and/or malicious admins from sniping specific players (not noticing some players doing no-nos, but always noticing other players doing no-nos) and c) letting the playerbase choose when they need OOC assistance. Not every minor deviation from a rule needs to end up with a ban/note. Obviously we are not talking about people who are going out of their way to ruin the round for others by causing ruckus without any IC justification.

The policy thread is not about any specific problem, but a debate to see which direction different members of the community would like things to move towards to.

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Arianya » Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:14 pm #519873

No one really needs to worry about "admin workload" other then the admins themselves. Believe me when I say that admins are more then capable of not doing administrative duties or ignore a ticket or two if they feel overloaded. This isn't a paid job where we have a moral or contractual obligation that could make that problematic.

Your concern about "hypervigilant" or "malicious" admins is pointless - if you have concerns take them to the headmins in forumPMs/a complaint - trying to write policy to counter a hypothetical bad actor admin is largely pointless since the point of enforcement of that policy is still the headmins. All you'll achieve in the meantime is confusing or misleading new admins who take said policy at face value and become less capable administrators for it.

As a general rule, administrators are not here to bwoink just because they can. In every ticket (whether spurred on by a player or self-instigated) the question at the forefront of an admin's mind is going to be "how much do I care about this ticket in the abstract" - because believe it or not admins do not enjoy arguing with people over minutiae any more then the players do.

This seems to be a thread more so for theorycrafting about hypotheticals - either hypothetical situations where an admin's intervention wouldn't be needed or hypothetical malicious admins who need policy built against them.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

Skillywatt
 
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:29 pm
Byond Username: Tiguar

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Skillywatt » Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:46 pm #520483

If admins are going to dismiss ahelps from uninvolved individuals, then this shit shouldnt be policy either.

It makes zero sense other than "because" to allow one but not the other.

The rationale in the locked policy thread of needing context doesn't fly because I ahelped someone literally talking in say about "metagrudging" someone because they were gulagged. Yes, the player actually said "I'm going to metagrudge this guy" in general say chat. I ahelped it as an fyi incase some bullshit happens, since verbally admitting to metagrudging is about the only way to get caught.

I was told to mind my business and not be a snitch.

Great adminning.

User avatar
wesoda25
 
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:32 pm
Location: not europe lol
Byond Username: Wesoda25

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby wesoda25 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:39 am #520503

This is just one of those things that are left to admin interpretation, and while 90% of admins will see it your way, there’s always those few who enforce rules to the letter and not the spirit. It sucks but since technically speaking those admins aren’t in the wrong its just something you have to be careful of and deal with.
ignore everything i say for the next month

User avatar
Gigapuddi420
 
Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 8:08 am
Location: Dorms
Byond Username: Gigapuddi420

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Gigapuddi420 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:11 am #520509

Skillywatt wrote:If admins are going to dismiss ahelps from uninvolved individuals, then this shit shouldnt be policy either.

Depends on the circumstances, personally I'm not against third parties throwing out a admin help ticket when they suspect some serious rules are being broken. I've caught pairs of players metacomming previously based on tips from players and if the tip doesn't go anywhere it's not like I'm obliged to get back to them. Typically I'll thank them for the information regardless. That said, when a player is constantly creating tickets for minor issues they aren't even involved in on top of all the other tickets from players asking for help it can get rather annoying. It gets even more annoying if that player is reporting things then hassling you for the result or telling you how to handle it.

As I've said to other admins; it's helpful to get tip-offs from players from time to time and we shouldn't be discouraging people from reporting problems they see. You don't have to act on every ticket and it doesn't take much to tell them 'I'll look into it' even if you ultimately don't. It's not worth muting someone's ahelp unless they are abusing the system or constantly mini-modding admins over petty issues they aren't involved in.
Imperfect catgirl playing a imperfect game.

User avatar
teepeepee
 
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:21 am
Byond Username: Teepeepee

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby teepeepee » Wed Oct 23, 2019 5:47 am #520520

here's a great idea: players only get to open an ahelp ticket once every three days, better wait for something serious to happen!
and for admemes, an inverse ban quota: they can only note/ban x number of times every y days, so make sure it's worth it (or get another admin to use their quota when you're out)!

User avatar
Sandshark808
 
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2019 6:56 pm
Byond Username: Sandshark808

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Sandshark808 » Wed Oct 23, 2019 5:51 am #520521

teepeepee wrote:here's a great idea: players only get to open an ahelp ticket once every three days, better wait for something serious to happen!
and for admemes, an inverse ban quota: they can only note/ban x number of times every y days, so make sure it's worth it (or get another admin to use their quota when you're out)!

You posted in the wrong thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=32
Image

User avatar
Reyn
 
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:13 am
Location: Canada
Byond Username: ReynTime13

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Reyn » Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:01 pm #520578

teepeepee wrote:here's a great idea: players only get to open an ahelp ticket once every three days, better wait for something serious to happen!
and for admemes, an inverse ban quota: they can only note/ban x number of times every y days, so make sure it's worth it (or get another admin to use their quota when you're out)!



Most people already dont bwoink enough things. Limiting ahelps to once every three days means that for two days after any ahelp, for any reason, be it for advice or for an issue, theres a three day period where someone cannot ahelp situations so theyre essentially free to kill by random assistants for 72 hours. You cant predict the fucking future and you cant just wait for something worse to happen when someone decided to maxcap brig as nonantag with you in it. Fuckery can happen any round, and having one person forced to only have one ahelp every 3 days is just asking for people to break the rules more than ever. Once again, people dont ahelp enough as it is.

Also, admins do not have an actual ban or note quota, and, usually, only ban or note when you fucked up and it isnt funny. If an admin bans or notes for no reason, or for what you consider to be a bad reason, appeal and make an admin complaint. Admins do not need to be limited to only being able to ban or note x times in a y day period. This, if combined with the ahelp limit, would lead to rules practically never being enforced unless its something ridiculously overtly shitty.

For the love of fucking god i hope your suggestion was a joke.
I play Trevor Fea on Bagil, And Giorno Giovanna on terry. Yes, I'm THAT raging asshole. Sorry for being such a cunt.
Have I told you how much I hate engineering, by the way?

PostThis post was deleted by Reyn on Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:02 pm.
Reason: Triplepost

PostThis post was deleted by Reyn on Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:03 pm.
Reason: Triplepost, how did i manage that

User avatar
Reyn
 
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:13 am
Location: Canada
Byond Username: ReynTime13

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Reyn » Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:04 pm #520581

Gigapuddi420 wrote:
Skillywatt wrote:If admins are going to dismiss ahelps from uninvolved individuals, then this shit shouldnt be policy either.

Depends on the circumstances, personally I'm not against third parties throwing out a admin help ticket when they suspect some serious rules are being broken. I've caught pairs of players metacomming previously based on tips from players and if the tip doesn't go anywhere it's not like I'm obliged to get back to them. Typically I'll thank them for the information regardless. That said, when a player is constantly creating tickets for minor issues they aren't even involved in on top of all the other tickets from players asking for help it can get rather annoying. It gets even more annoying if that player is reporting things then hassling you for the result or telling you how to handle it.

As I've said to other admins; it's helpful to get tip-offs from players from time to time and we shouldn't be discouraging people from reporting problems they see. You don't have to act on every ticket and it doesn't take much to tell them 'I'll look into it' even if you ultimately don't. It's not worth muting someone's ahelp unless they are abusing the system or constantly mini-modding admins over petty issues they aren't involved in.


Ive had many an ahelp closed just because i was an observer
I play Trevor Fea on Bagil, And Giorno Giovanna on terry. Yes, I'm THAT raging asshole. Sorry for being such a cunt.
Have I told you how much I hate engineering, by the way?

NamesAreHard
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:39 am
Byond Username: Names Are Hard

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby NamesAreHard » Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:42 pm #520602

Reyn wrote:
Gigapuddi420 wrote:
Skillywatt wrote:If admins are going to dismiss ahelps from uninvolved individuals, then this shit shouldnt be policy either.

Depends on the circumstances, personally I'm not against third parties throwing out a admin help ticket when they suspect some serious rules are being broken. I've caught pairs of players metacomming previously based on tips from players and if the tip doesn't go anywhere it's not like I'm obliged to get back to them. Typically I'll thank them for the information regardless. That said, when a player is constantly creating tickets for minor issues they aren't even involved in on top of all the other tickets from players asking for help it can get rather annoying. It gets even more annoying if that player is reporting things then hassling you for the result or telling you how to handle it.

As I've said to other admins; it's helpful to get tip-offs from players from time to time and we shouldn't be discouraging people from reporting problems they see. You don't have to act on every ticket and it doesn't take much to tell them 'I'll look into it' even if you ultimately don't. It's not worth muting someone's ahelp unless they are abusing the system or constantly mini-modding admins over petty issues they aren't involved in.


Ive had many an ahelp closed just because i was an observer


I'm pretty sure your ahelps get closed because you make shit ahelps.

User avatar
deedubya
 
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:05 am
Location: shitting up your thread
Byond Username: Deedubya

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby deedubya » Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:19 am #520621

NamesAreHard wrote:
Reyn wrote:
Gigapuddi420 wrote:
Skillywatt wrote:If admins are going to dismiss ahelps from uninvolved individuals, then this shit shouldnt be policy either.

Depends on the circumstances, personally I'm not against third parties throwing out a admin help ticket when they suspect some serious rules are being broken. I've caught pairs of players metacomming previously based on tips from players and if the tip doesn't go anywhere it's not like I'm obliged to get back to them. Typically I'll thank them for the information regardless. That said, when a player is constantly creating tickets for minor issues they aren't even involved in on top of all the other tickets from players asking for help it can get rather annoying. It gets even more annoying if that player is reporting things then hassling you for the result or telling you how to handle it.

As I've said to other admins; it's helpful to get tip-offs from players from time to time and we shouldn't be discouraging people from reporting problems they see. You don't have to act on every ticket and it doesn't take much to tell them 'I'll look into it' even if you ultimately don't. It's not worth muting someone's ahelp unless they are abusing the system or constantly mini-modding admins over petty issues they aren't involved in.


Ive had many an ahelp closed just because i was an observer


I'm pretty sure your ahelps get closed because you make shit ahelps.


This, more or less. I've made quite a few ahelps as an uninvolved observer, or snitching out obvious dumbassery(ock ick/netspeak, for example), and I've never once been rudely dismissed for it. Make sure the issue you're ahelping is actually a legitimate issue first if it doesn't involve you.
Galatians 4:16 "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?"
hey imma teegee admeme compliment me on my appearance here

flattering compliments people have given me:
Spoiler:
oranges wrote:honestly holy shit deedubs you're a dent head

wesoda25 wrote:deedub is one of the people that makes me wish i could block users on forums

IkeTG wrote:every post from deedubya is worrying behavior

Super Aggro Crag wrote:you're a poo head!!!!!

TheMythicGhost wrote:You're a moron, but that's really nothing new since you're Deedubya, and really at this point I'm just playing an instrument by speaking since your head is so goddamn empty these words are resonating as they pass through.

Lazengann wrote:What's interesting about deedubya is the guy has no reading skills or comprehension and his ADHD is so severe he can't read through a single thread but he shows up to argue anyway

annoyinggreencatgirl wrote:you really are almost superhumanly retarded dude, holy smokes.

Image

User avatar
Qbmax32
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:05 am
Location: somewhere
Byond Username: Qbmax32
Github Username: qbmax32

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Qbmax32 » Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:37 pm #520670

It’s all a spectrum. On one end you have the people who only ahelp their massive grievances at the end of the round and force the admin to either tell them to suck it up or spend the next 20 minutes log diving, and then on the other end you have people like reyn who’s ahelps I’ve started automatically tuning out because most of them are garbage.
my admin feedback thread


quotes
Spoiler:
angelstarri wrote:qbmax is a retard


imsxz wrote:mythic please stop you’ve hit rock bottom and you KEEP DIGGING


deedubya wrote:I'll defend to the death your right to scream "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER" on a constant basis, but I'll also equally defend the right of people to call you a fuckin' pillock for doing it.

datorangebottle wrote:what, not having to act like customer service in a volunteer customer service position?

Here's a rebuttal: you're literally in a customer service slash celebrity position. Volunteer or not.

Malkraz wrote:can you stop posting this shit

Nalzul wrote:Fuck Blob (can you imagine how hot it would be to be gangbanged by a bunch of blobbernauts, the blob, and spores)

Wyzack wrote:qbmax your pathetic display of abhorrent burgercraft has brought shame onto the omnivores

Plapatin wrote:i AM the senate

BONERMASTER wrote:I am a big thinker, and it would only be logical if my character had a big head as well. And glasses. Because only people that think, wear glasses.

feem wrote:i tried to send canisters of urine to the station but ended up turning all oxygen into urine and breaking lavaland and also breathing

Anonmare wrote:Each post in this thread can't settle on what it wants to be, but yet, each one is more cursed than the last.

Beesting12 wrote:please write an apology to this forums, this community, the host, and the internet as a whole for the data storage space you wasted with this complaint.

Vile Beggar wrote:i don't like this thread

imsxz wrote:nervore

FantasticFwoosh wrote:I will whisper sweet nothings that will confuse and perhaps scare you a little, but enhance the experience no-less.

afelinidisfinetoo wrote:By the way, the person who posted that catgirl porn on the github page was me. If anyone wants my private stash just PM me

Nervere wrote:Anything for a femoid.....

Qbopper wrote:I'm a dumb poopy butthead

CitrusGender wrote:god i love it when people feed me my own fried legs

User avatar
Reyn
 
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:13 am
Location: Canada
Byond Username: ReynTime13

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Reyn » Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:26 pm #520686

Qbmax32 wrote:It’s all a spectrum. On one end you have the people who only ahelp their massive grievances at the end of the round and force the admin to either tell them to suck it up or spend the next 20 minutes log diving, and then on the other end you have people like reyn who’s ahelps I’ve started automatically tuning out because most of them are garbage.



I will admit, I ahelp way too fucking much. I'm working on toning down the levels of ahelps if I can.

NamesAreHard wrote:
Reyn wrote:
Gigapuddi420 wrote:
Skillywatt wrote:If admins are going to dismiss ahelps from uninvolved individuals, then this shit shouldnt be policy either.

Depends on the circumstances, personally I'm not against third parties throwing out a admin help ticket when they suspect some serious rules are being broken. I've caught pairs of players metacomming previously based on tips from players and if the tip doesn't go anywhere it's not like I'm obliged to get back to them. Typically I'll thank them for the information regardless. That said, when a player is constantly creating tickets for minor issues they aren't even involved in on top of all the other tickets from players asking for help it can get rather annoying. It gets even more annoying if that player is reporting things then hassling you for the result or telling you how to handle it.

As I've said to other admins; it's helpful to get tip-offs from players from time to time and we shouldn't be discouraging people from reporting problems they see. You don't have to act on every ticket and it doesn't take much to tell them 'I'll look into it' even if you ultimately don't. It's not worth muting someone's ahelp unless they are abusing the system or constantly mini-modding admins over petty issues they aren't involved in.


Ive had many an ahelp closed just because i was an observer


I'm pretty sure your ahelps get closed because you make shit ahelps.


In retrospect, You're right. I've made a lot of shit ahelps. Working on toning it down a bit. But that's not the topic. Admins need to be able to intervene without ahelps being a thing, and people don't need to be further discouraged from ahelping or expecting staff to do stuff. Other than me, of course, because I've ahelped way too fucking much.
I play Trevor Fea on Bagil, And Giorno Giovanna on terry. Yes, I'm THAT raging asshole. Sorry for being such a cunt.
Have I told you how much I hate engineering, by the way?

User avatar
Karp
 
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:54 am
Byond Username: Ambassador Magikarp

Re: The 'Admin intervention without anyone ahelping' policy tweaking suggestion

Postby Karp » Sat Oct 26, 2019 10:25 am #520932

This is never something that is going to get a hard line definition without fucking over some part of admin discretion in enforcement

If you're okay with being murdered and the admin PMs you about your murder just tell the admin you're fine with it and it was no big deal and it'll usually get dropped

The only real change you could ever suggest is telling admins to just check up on the victim to get their perspective on the situation before proceeding with punishment

After that the cases in which the admins would still care are few and far between. The person in question would need a bad history or to be on a watch list to get in trouble when both parties are okay with what happened.

Locking admin enforcement to ahelped situations exclusively or forcing admins to deal with every situation that comes up regardless of all parties being okay with it is hot garbage. This is why admin discretion in the form of rule 0 exists in the first place.
Image
Image


Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armhulen