Letting ban/note apeals be resolved by the same admin that placed them is dumb.

[CPTANT]

It creates a lack of accountability, factually incorrect bans and notes can just be rejected by the banning admin himself.

Admins don't get to handle complaints about themselves and a large section of ban appeals are mostly complaints about an admins interpretation of events.

If headmins don't feel like answering everything is on the banning admin, some people even try to circumvent this by posting admin complaints instead of appeals.

[skoglol]

Headmins can overrule any ban appeal decision, and only headmins move appeals to resolved.

[capn_monkeypaw]

Headmins can overrule any ban appeal decision, and only headmins move appeals to resolved.

[NecromancerAnne]

Headmins can overrule any ban appeal decision, and only headmins move appeals to resolved.

[CPTANT]

Then why was this the response I got when asking about it:

You're not guaranteed a headmin response - generally if given a few days with no headmin comment or overruling it's presumed they have no interest to comment on the case and so the banning admin's ruling stands.

[Shadowflame909]

Usually, in ban appeals admins are looking for something like

"Hey I fucked up and I realize it now sorry for being such a poopy head"

Unless you got permabanned or really pissed off the admin by arguing with them for 3 hours.

Edit: So. It makes sense for them to handle their own ban appeals. Since 90% of a time an admission of guilt is all they want.

[Gigapuddi420]

Then why was this the response I got when asking about it:

You're not guaranteed a headmin response - generally if given a few days with no headmin comment or overruling it's presumed they have no interest to comment on the case and so the banning admin's ruling stands.

Headmins can abstain from responding. The point still stands that if you think the admin's ruling isn't fair the next level of appeals is to the headmins. It's pretty rare for a headmin to abstain from a highly contested appeal; it might take a while depending on circumstances but one of the headmins will respond eventually to those.

The system is pretty simple really. You appeal to the banning admin either on the ground they made a mistake or that you don't deserve the level of punishment given. You explain your case and try to convince them to uphold your appeal. From there the banning admin will respond and explain their reasoning. The point of the appeal is for both banning admin and player to reach a conclusion; to uphold the ban or reach a compromise where the ban is reduced or outright removed if mistakes were made. Here wording can be corrected, explanations can be given and apologies made if appropriate. If the player feels the ban was unreasonable and the admin refuses to alter the ban then it falls on the headmin team to give oversight.

Regardless of the method the banning admin HAS to be involved in the process. If the appeals process required a uninvolved admin that admin would still have to wait for the banning admin to respond to the appeal and give context. Seeing as the banning admin would have to be involved, whoever is required to actually handle the appeal will have to consider the banning admins advice. Put simply; we already somewhat have a system where the banning admin denies or grants each appeal and then the headmin team rubber stamps it. Even the decision not to comment is itself, a choice and is only made when the headmin team doesn't think there is anything worth commenting on. To cut this short; if you feel hard done by appeal to the headmins and if the headmins don't agree try again next term.

[deedubya]

Headmins can overrule any ban appeal decision, and only headmins move appeals to resolved.

This isn't how the process appears to non-admins. At the very least, non-headmins shouldn't have close topic privileges on FNR. Often times when a banning admin is tired of defending their position on a matter(successfully or not), they'll simply elect to go "judgement as stands" and lock the topic, preventing any further discussion. Then most of the time, a headmin will glance at it, see that the admin got the last word, and shuffle the topic off to resolved. The principle of the OP here isn't misguided. The banning admin should have no moderation powers whatsoever in a topic that involves them, since they generally have a vested interest in trying to make you look bad and making the problem go away.

[Arianya]

Headmins have enough busywork as is without making them personally close and resolve every single ban appeal - especially since a headmin can't just read the two sides in the thread and give a thumbs up or down - commenting as a headmin requires you to pull logs, question the banning admin/other admins online at the time, etc etc.

Failing to do so would just open the headmin team to mockery when they miss something that wasn't in the ban appeal.

For that reason you're never going to get 100% coverage.

[skoglol]

Headmins can overrule any ban appeal decision, and only headmins move appeals to resolved.

This isn't how the process appears to non-admins. At the very least, non-headmins shouldn't have close topic privileges on FNR. Often times when a banning admin is tired of defending their position on a matter(successfully or not), they'll simply elect to go "judgement as stands" and lock the topic, preventing any further discussion. Then most of the time, a headmin will glance at it, see that the admin got the last word, and shuffle the topic off to resolved. The principle of the OP here isn't misguided. The banning admin should have no moderation powers whatsoever in a topic that involves them, since they generally have a vested interest in trying to make you look bad and making the problem go away.

I'm not an admin, but then again I also don't write several 1000 word essays over a note either.

[Reyn]

If a ban appeal is EXTREMELY mishandled, Admincomplaints are a valid option, or if people go against rulings. The reason why banning admins do the appeal is that, Normally, The banning admin knows the most about the ban situation, and tends to be the one who knows the most about the context of whatever the fuck happened. As much as it is annoying sometimes when you're not on the best terms with said admin, It's better, in theory, when this concept is not abused or if the admin doesn't have their head stuck so far up their ass they become a fucking 5d abstract art, due to not having someone with no clue what the FUCK going on dealing with a situation they don't know a damn thing about, and didn't see in action or really understand.

Seriously, you do NOT want admins who have no clue what the fuck the circumstances are outside of notes and standard logs to be resolving an ahelp they didn't have any involvement in. That's a recipie for disaster.

IF an admin abuses this concept, Headmins should interfere, or a complaint should be made. If someone's just being stuck up about a ban and won't let it go even though rulings, and logic, dictate that this should be ruled otherwise, make the appeal again later if it's a permaban, or make a complaint.

But that's just my Two cents.

[Sandshark808]

If a ban appeal is EXTREMELY mishandled, Admincomplaints are a valid option.

Didn't this come up recently and some admins derided it as a form of backdoor ban-appeal?

[Reyn]

If a ban appeal is EXTREMELY mishandled, Admincomplaints are a valid option.

Didn't this come up recently and some admins derided it as a form of backdoor ban-appeal?

Uh... wheres the example

[Sandshark808]

If a ban appeal is EXTREMELY mishandled, Admincomplaints are a valid option.

Didn't this come up recently and some admins derided it as a form of backdoor ban-appeal?

Uh... wheres the example

Haha HOLY FUCK it's the SAME JANNIE

Wow, imagine having such bad takes all the time.

[Agux909]

If a ban appeal is EXTREMELY mishandled, Admincomplaints are a valid option, or if people go against rulings. The reason why banning admins do the appeal is that, Normally, The banning admin knows the most about the ban situation, and tends to be the one who knows the most about the context of whatever the fuck happened. As much as it is annoying sometimes when you're not on the best terms with said admin, It's better, in theory, when this concept is not abused or if the admin doesn't have their head stuck so far up their ass they become a fucking 5d abstract art, due to not having someone with no clue what the FUCK going on dealing with a situation they don't know a damn thing about, and didn't see in action or really understand.

Seriously, you do NOT want admins who have no clue what the fuck the circumstances are outside of notes and standard logs to be resolving an ahelp they didn't have any involvement in. That's a recipie for disaster.

IF an admin abuses this concept, Headmins should interfere, or a complaint should be made. If someone's just being stuck up about a ban and won't let it go even though rulings, and logic, dictate that this should be ruled otherwise, make the appeal again later if it's a permaban, or make a complaint.

But that's just my Two cents.

This. All common sense pretty much

[Gigapuddi420]

Haha HOLY FUCK it's the SAME JANNIE
Wow, imagine having such bad takes all the time.

Please be respectful of other users. You can disagree with someone without being a hostile douchebag.

FNR is not the hut.

Admin Complaints is a section for exactly that: filing complaints against admins for misusing their tools. This can include bans you perceive to be in bad faith, but if you appeal first and are denied the chances of a successful Admin Complaint is pretty low. I've seen people successfully file Admin Complaints over bad bans, but typically it's better to just appeal. The ban has to be pretty bad to the point it flies in the face of the rules for it to be complaint worthy. Plenty of complaints have been thrown out for being basically second chance appeal attempts so make sure if you use the section you have a good argument for why you feel the admin abused their role.

[Iatots]

One would think that a ban so bad as to be abuse in itself would have consequences for the banning admin in the appeal thread, but has that happened yet? Most high profile cases end up straight away in complains.

[ATHATH]

At the very least, non-headmins shouldn't have close topic privileges on FNR.

This. It feels absolutely awful to have your argument silenced by the admin who banned you because they locked the thread (allowing them to get in the "last word" and preventing you from posting any response to their last argument). Headmins can just close the thread when they move it anyway, so this would be very little extra work for them.

Headmins have enough busywork as is without making them personally close and resolve every single ban appeal

They already resolve every ban appeal, just have them lock the threads as well when they move them. That can't be that much extra work, can it?

[Gigapuddi420]

I sort of agree that it would be annoying to have the thread locked on you after the admin got the final word. On the other hand, I've seen too many appeal threads turn into long circular arguments where nothing is accomplished and no one is learning anything. Admins are encouraged to close their threads a while after they've made their decision, personally I preferred to wait a day for the player to read my comments and see if they offered anything more, if the thread doesn't go anywhere then I'd close it and ask a headmin to sign off on it, after which I'd expect at least another day before they moved it to resolved. I have moved my own threads into resolved before, but only after making sure it was okay to do so.

It's a bad old habit for admins to just immediately close their thread after a decision is reached. Back when I started it was discouraged and I couldn't comment about current admin practices, I'm not paying too much attention to when admins close their threads right now. That said, it's useful to be able to close your own threads when done, I've had threads which were done and going no where descend into peanut posting bullshit from admins and players alike. Used properly the tools are valuable.

[ATHATH]

I sort of agree that it would be annoying to have the thread locked on you after the admin got the final word. On the other hand, I've seen too many appeal threads turn into long circular arguments where nothing is accomplished and no one is learning anything. Admins are encouraged to close their threads a while after they've made their decision, personally I preferred to wait a day for the player to read my comments and see if they offered anything more, if the thread doesn't go anywhere then I'd close it and ask a headmin to sign off on it, after which I'd expect at least another day before they moved it to resolved. I have moved my own threads into resolved before, but only after making sure it was okay to do so.

It's a bad old habit for admins to just immediately close their thread after a decision is reached. Back when I started it was discouraged and I couldn't comment about current admin practices, I'm not paying too much attention to when admins close their threads right now. That said, it's useful to be able to close your own threads when done, I've had threads which were done and going no where descend into peanut posting bullshit from admins and players alike. Used properly the tools are valuable.

If a thread has devolved into a long, circular argument, isn't that when an headmin is supposed to step in and make a ruling?

[Gigapuddi420]

If a thread has devolved into a long, circular argument, isn't that when an headmin is supposed to step in and make a ruling?

That would be ideal, but we had a period back then when headmins didn't reply for like a month. Either way admins have limited moderation powers on the forums and have been told they are allowed to use them to manage their ban appeals with caveats on how they use those tools. Closing your thread immediately after denying and then moving it into resolved is frowned upon but used to be allowed, it's not like admins can delete posts or threads so any time they use those moderation powers someone can overlook it and point out abuses.

Forum mods can be a bit hands off on Ban Appeals/Complaints, they'll nuke obvious peanut posts but it's rare they'll close threads themselves as it can interfere with the process. Sometimes they might close a thread until the banning admin comes along to respond.

[oranges]

it used to be that any other admin could close your thread, so you didn't need to close it yourself

then a bunch of headadmins decided they were so anal they needed to review every one, then they got burned out and stopped doing it.

now it's just a mix of whatever the fuck anyone wants to do

[Dr. Aura]

I've brought this up in the past and the response I got amounted to was 'headmins don't rule on these things but we have no way to show we've checked off on the matter for serious infractions outside resolving them' because headmin (or my suggestion, neutral third parties of standing) rulings would end up producing the same amount of griping the old system had because they'd rule so often in favor of the banning admins anyways.
Aside from changing nothing, either we can hound MSO to actually implement some kind of thread tracker to show a headmin has peeked at a thread or implement the changes with an appeal revision through the headmins do nothing because the sitting administration probably won't agree to changes that make more work for themselves.

[bobbahbrown]

I've brought this up in the past and the response I got amounted to was 'headmins don't rule on these things but we have no way to show we've checked off on the matter for serious infractions outside resolving them' because headmin (or my suggestion, neutral third parties of standing) rulings would end up producing the same amount of griping the old system had because they'd rule so often in favor of the banning admins anyways.
Aside from changing nothing, either we can hound MSO to actually implement some kind of thread tracker to show a headmin has peeked at a thread or implement the changes with an appeal revision through the headmins do nothing because the sitting administration probably won't agree to changes that make more work for themselves.

they could just make a post on the relevant thread -- but i'm assuming that's what you're implying with the appeal revision statement

don't need a tracker for that, and convincing them to make that change is probably easier than trying to change forum stuff