/tg/Station 13

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

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

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.

CPTANT wrote: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.

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

deedubya wrote:

skoglol wrote: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.

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

Sandshark808 wrote:

Reyn wrote: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 wrote:

Sandshark808 wrote:

Reyn wrote: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

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

Forum Rule 7 wrote: Please be respectful of other users. You can disagree with someone without being a hostile douchebag.

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

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

Gigapuddi420 wrote: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 wrote: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?

Dr. Aura wrote: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.