An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

[oranges]

The An0n3 amendment was originally added to be used to cut out shit posting and misinformed comment in ban appeals, posts that were well written opinions that had clear and substantial disagreement with the banning admins opinion were left in, because it was important for a ban appeal to be a discussion about the merit of a ban based on it's facts, rather than just an admin passing judgement on the appeal with no input from the community at large.

That was how we agreed upon the mutual contract between admin and players and was important to having a healthy community, because it meant that players felt like they could advocate on a ban and have their voice heard.

But the way it is enforced unequally these days, it's used to suppress anyone from posting in a thread at all as long as they're posting an opinion that dissents from the banning admins.

Admins are free to post repeatedly in a thread, all reinforcing the original banning admin, often when they're not even the involved admin, or posting any relevant rulings or speaking directly to any of the written rules. Right now it's an open joke among players about how many admins tend to post in appeals, each backing each other up and making it seem like the weight of opinion is stacked against a ban appeal, but that is simply because any dissenting opinion is swiftly removed for being (peanut).

To disagree with a ban, you either have to
A)post only factually, being unable to disagree with the underlying ban on anything other than logical grounds
B)rules lawyer your way to the original opinion about the ban that was held

A ban appeal is an admin opinion, the admin has seen a set of events and formed an opinion about what action to take under the rules framework, it then stands to reason that to offer some semblance of fair justice we *must* allow dissenting opinions to be raised on the same basis, of evaluating the facts on the ground, and establishing an opinion based on that.

People should be able to share that opinion in the ban appeal, without having it be suppressed because it doesn't explicitly speak to a named rule, or doesn't include new facts relevant to the case.

I say we need to rewrite the An0n3 amendment, to clearly restrict shit posting and memes, but to allow users to hold a clear and well stated opinion, where it is relevant to the ban at hand and especially if it's a dissenting opinion from the one formed by the banning admin. It should especially leave license for other admins to dissent from an opinion, and hold their own, without needing to speak to a specific ruling or item of fact.

As it is now, the An0n3 amendment is not being used to reduce shit posting from uninformed people, but as a tool to suppress anyone trying to argue a ban on the grey areas and not a technicality. This goes against the spirit of the original amendment and is deeply dangerous to our democracy.

[Arianya]

For reference, the original anon3 post (unedited since its posting):

THE AN0N3 AMENDMENT IS IN EFFECT

Adding to/adjusting the definitions so that players can post in a thread regarding something they weren't involved in, IF IT IS TO BRING UP/POINT TO/HIGHLIGHT a rule, precedent, or piece of evidence that was missed that is relevant to the situation.

This does NOT include:
"This happened to me once and I didn't get banned for it" or the reverse "This happened to me once and I got banned for it."
"My opinion is…" or "I feel like…"

This WOULD cover:
"Rule 3 says…"
"These admins have always allowed…"
"Actually in the logs it says…"

This would allow players who are invested in the rules, have the experience, and can conduct themselves well to advocate in threads.

The rule as written seems to directly rule out "posts that were well written opinions" - so I'd appreciate some citation on how the rule "used to be enforced", because as far as my reading goes this is straightforwardly forbidden by the rule.

But the way it is enforced unequally these days, it's used to suppress anyone from posting in a thread at all as long as they're posting an opinion that dissents from the banning admins.

For reference, I've more then once deleted a supporting opinion (shitposting or well written) that supports someone's ban, so I take this as a bit of confirmation bias to be honest.

To disagree with a ban, you either have to
A)post only factually, being unable to disagree with the underlying ban on anything other than logical grounds
B)rules lawyer your way to the original opinion about the ban that was held

If you can't disagree with the ban based on the rules or on what actually happened - then it sounds a lot like your post is a policy discussion, IMO.

[oranges]

Your obsessive focus on the rules as written says everything that needs to be said

[Arianya]

Your obsessive focus on the rules as written says everything that needs to be said

I often apply the gauge of the spirit of the rules vs the written - there are many posts that wouldn't fly under the written word that have been allowed because they fit the spirit. I'd be curious to hear why you think the spirit directly contradicts the letter though - that's just unclear rule writing if so.

[Stickymayhem]

I agree this is a problem and it tends to crop up every time we dont think about it for a while.

We could rewrite the rule, but I think the rule is fine. I'm sure you're going to say "Admins self-policing har de har har" but can the headmins just weigh on this, say it's bad and direct the global mods to be stricter on admin posts as well.

If we shame admins and make them feel dumb for bandwagoning then it'll eventually stop.

I think we should also lower the bar for posting slightly since often there will be cogent points within angry autistic posts and they still get swept away just because they were mad.

[Sometinyprick]

I was around when this was first enforced, the spirit of it essentially was to stop the insane amount of shitposting we had in ban appeals at the time. It's fair to say though that we shouldn't really be held to the specifics of a rule written out nearly 6 years ago in response to a wave of shitposting which denigrated nearly every ban appeal into a 6 page slugfest. I believe if a player is able to make a well reasoned and coherent argument it should be allowed to stay especially if it's an opinion formed around the use of facts, precedent and our current rules.

[oranges]

If we shame admins and make them feel dumb for bandwagoning then it'll eventually stop.

Difficult to shame anyone when all your posts get deleted for being dissenting opinions mate.

[CDranzer]

I never even understood peanut policy. Like, I've spent enough time in the hut to appreciate that threads on bans often descend into chaotic shitposting, but I'm still not sure why such a rule exists in the first place. Like, okay, yes, you may have to do some kind of moderation and arbitration, but isn't that literally the point of admins in the first place? Also, the whole reason we ban is for the bettering of the community, surely community opinion should have at least some say, even if there's a higher standard of quality enforced on the appeals forum.

[Kel]

i honestly never saw the point of trying to stem the tide of shitposting anyway, people nowadays treat the relevant peanut thread that now exists for literally every ban as the actual ban appeal (banning admin and banned player also tending to discuss the ban in the thread). the ban appeal thread itself is just where a guy puts his collective argument he's made elsewhere in a handful of posts, someone posting relevant logs, and a handful of admins dropping their opinion (with an obligatory 1 deleted post or so for being peanut).

[Stickymayhem]

If we shame admins and make them feel dumb for bandwagoning then it'll eventually stop.

Difficult to shame anyone when all your posts get deleted for being dissenting opinions mate.

I dont mean the playerbase, I mean adminbus

[terranaut]

wtf I love oranges now?

Seriously though there's not much to add aside from agreeing on a draft on the rewritten version, this is something that should be done.

[feem]

I agree that it's not used consistently and it allows pile-ons by admins while excluding potential anecdotal information and requests for clarification from players.

I would like to see the rule applied universally with only banning admin, banned individual, logposters, and headmins posting, and players posts should not be edited to "remove an0n3 violations," the posts should just be deleted outright if that's necessary.

The pile-on problem isn't as bad as it used to be, and I'd like to see more player involvement in at least the precedent side of the appeals process. Frankly I'd like to have open season but I also remember how difficult ban appeals became when that was the case, so I'd settle for consistent enforcement.

[Gigapuddi420]

I've seen it applied equally to admins before, though not as often as I would like. Hell my only forum warning is from the time I was admin and I peanut posted in another admin's appeal. I'm sort of mixed on the An0n3 amendment because are times when a appeal gets tangled because of poor communication and a little nudge can help clear things up. I prefer keeping peanut posts out because I've seen plenty of dog-piles from players and admins alike, then you've just got flat out shitposting for laughs. Plenty of places for those but appeals being somewhat orderly helps to keep focus.

Try and have more even enforcement and remind admins not to help each other out unless it fits within the same rules players can assist with.

[deedubya]

I've been saying this for months, and it was written off as "lol deedubya opinion" as though there wasn't a super fucking obvious bias in the people moderating FNR. Literally the entire reason I'm on post approval is because I repeatedly posted precedent that disagreed with what the majority admin opinion at the time was, and tried to defend myself when an admin straight up lied trying to tell people otherwise.

I look forward to it being written off as "lol oranges causing drama" and nothing being done about it, because god forbid a server's administration be held accountable to its playerbase.

[capn_monkeypaw]

I never even understood peanut policy. Like, I've spent enough time in the hut to appreciate that threads on bans often descend into chaotic shitposting, but I'm still not sure why such a rule exists in the first place.

Imagine the hut.

But now imagine the hut happening in every ban appeal thread.

[wesoda25]

lets not get it twisted, the reason deedubs is banned is because he consistently makes posts that wouldn’t even be protected if we did rewrite the rule as oranges wants

but yeah good take oranges

[teepeepee]

I never even understood peanut policy. Like, I've spent enough time in the hut to appreciate that threads on bans often descend into chaotic shitposting, but I'm still not sure why such a rule exists in the first place.

Imagine the hut.

But now imagine the hut happening in every ban appeal thread.

this would be great

[NikNakFlak]

I see this more as a specific moderator problem rather than a problem with the policy itself.

[Arianya]

This post was deleted by Arianya on Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:46 pm.
Reason: Shitposts go in the hut

[CDranzer]

I never even understood peanut policy. Like, I've spent enough time in the hut to appreciate that threads on bans often descend into chaotic shitposting, but I'm still not sure why such a rule exists in the first place.

Imagine the hut.

But now imagine the hut happening in every ban appeal thread.

So the ban appeal thread would be the peanut instead of the hut thread.
... and?

[peoplearestrange]

-snip-

Can you give an example of the kinds of post which you think need to be allowed under the original spirit of the amendment?

What I'm really reading here is that admins aren't being held to the same standard as the players, and I agree that shouldn't be the case. It specifically says that admins are not an exception to the rule. (excluding headmins ofc).
Would a solution to be to hold admins to the standards we expect or was their another solution you had in mind?

[Karp]

I never even understood peanut policy. Like, I've spent enough time in the hut to appreciate that threads on bans often descend into chaotic shitposting, but I'm still not sure why such a rule exists in the first place.

Imagine the hut.

But now imagine the hut happening in every ban appeal thread.

So the ban appeal thread would be the peanut instead of the hut thread.
... and?

Not everyone wants to spend their time reading 3-4 pages of irrelevant chimpanzee gibbering and shit flinging when dealing with a contentious ban appeal if just the banning admin, affected party, and any 3rd parties with useful info can just post and cut down a 50-100+ post shitstorm of a thread down to 10-20 posts maximum

The people who make the rules here are the ones who are forced to read every ban appeal for second opinions if the original admin rejects a ban appeal so you can see why they might not want to read hundreds or thousands of useless uneducated commentary and opinion posts a week

[oranges]

karp you can't read

[Arianya]

This post was deleted by Arianya on Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:17 pm.
Reason: Shitposting goes in the hut

[Arianya]

This post was deleted by Arianya on Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:18 pm.
Reason: Response to deleted

[Arianya]

This post was deleted by Arianya on Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:18 pm.
Reason: Shitposting goes in the hut

[Arianya]

This post was deleted by Arianya on Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:18 pm.
Reason: Shitposting goes in the hut

[PKPenguin321]

Apparently I missed some kind of drama, what kicked this off?

[oranges]

Misuse of the An0n3 amendment, please read the thread before commenting thank you

[bandit]

I don't know if anyone's said this but it is absolutely false that admins can post in threads without repercussions or adherence to the rule, I have had posts deleted and so have other admins.

EDIT: if this is about goof then that thread is actually a very good example of admin posts being deleted

[PKPenguin321]

Misuse of the An0n3 amendment, please read the thread before commenting thank you

Specifically where

[peoplearestrange]

-snip-

Can you give an example of the kinds of post which you think need to be allowed under the original spirit of the amendment?

What I'm really reading here is that admins aren't being held to the same standard as the players, and I agree that shouldn't be the case. It specifically says that admins are not an exception to the rule. (excluding headmins ofc).
Would a solution to be to hold admins to the standards we expect or was their another solution you had in mind?

Got an answer or just gonna ignore it?

[oranges]

3.) This is not the place to discuss bans requests, appeals, administrators or other players; that belongs in the FNR section

[CDranzer]

Not everyone wants to spend their time reading 3-4 pages of irrelevant chimpanzee gibbering and shit flinging when dealing with a contentious ban appeal if just the banning admin, affected party, and any 3rd parties with useful info can just post and cut down a 50-100+ post shitstorm of a thread down to 10-20 posts maximum

The people who make the rules here are the ones who are forced to read every ban appeal for second opinions if the original admin rejects a ban appeal so you can see why they might not want to read hundreds or thousands of useless uneducated commentary and opinion posts a week

When I was younger, I spent a year doing moderation work on a forum that had a far bigger and more unruly userbase, a far more strict administration, and far less moderators.
You will get no sympathy from me.

[Super Aggro Crag]

I agree.

[peoplearestrange]

Don't be obtuse...

[CDranzer]

Don't be obtuse...

I think he's saying that the third rule of this forum instructs users that the FNR section is "the place to discuss bans requests, appeals, administrators or other players", where in fact the An0n3 amendment explicitly prohibits users from doing those things.

[Arianya]

There is a very wide berth between "where do I go to discuss my ban with the admins" and "I want to shitpost about someone elses ban!" and I don't think it's particularly good faith to presume the latter is what that rule is talking about.

Also the "ban requests and other players" stuff is pretty outdated.

[oranges]

Don't be obtuse...

I'm not going to discuss specifics, as the rule are quite clear that this forum is not for that.

[MisterPerson]

I never even understood peanut policy. Like, I've spent enough time in the hut to appreciate that threads on bans often descend into chaotic shitposting, but I'm still not sure why such a rule exists in the first place. Like, okay, yes, you may have to do some kind of moderation and arbitration, but isn't that literally the point of admins in the first place? Also, the whole reason we ban is for the bettering of the community, surely community opinion should have at least some say, even if there's a higher standard of quality enforced on the appeals forum.

It's hard to adequately explain how shitty FNR was while peanut posting was allowed if you weren't around to witness it. The peanut gallery literally didn't serve any purpose except to start fights. If you disagree with the facts underlying a ban, the Anon3 amendment specifically allows that to be posted. If you disagree with a ruling, post in the admin's feedback thread. If you disagree with the general rule, you can make a policy discussion to change them. All your needs are being met here.

[XivilaiAnaxes]

People whinge endlessly if you post on their feedback thread over an appeal.

[Armhulen]

People whinge endlessly if you post on their feedback thread over an appeal.

Very true and I've talked a few times on how toxic admin feedback actually is, not letting a lot of real feedback come through from previous history of instant defense force + reports

[XivilaiAnaxes]

People whinge endlessly if you post on their feedback thread over an appeal.

Very true and I've talked a few times on how toxic admin feedback actually is, not letting a lot of real feedback come through from previous history of instant defense force + reports

Hell adding to this, Deebudya made a comment on Vektor's thread saying he blatantly admitted that he would ban someone for something not specifically against the rules only to have some admin modify his comment to say "b-but this is only based on Vektors forum comments not ingame gameplay!" before a site admin rolled that back.

[Armhulen]

People whinge endlessly if you post on their feedback thread over an appeal.

Very true and I've talked a few times on how toxic admin feedback actually is, not letting a lot of real feedback come through from previous history of instant defense force + reports

Hell adding to this, Deebudya made a comment on Vektor's thread saying he blatantly admitted that he would ban someone for something not specifically against the rules only to have some admin modify his comment to say "b-but this is only based on Vektors forum comments not ingame gameplay!" before a site admin rolled that back.

Here's where our opinions depart because as long as you aren't having full meltdown I don't care what shit you say in the hut, it's not meaningful feedback that someone shitposts or not. An appeal is tied to the game and makes sense to give feedback based on the outcome of an appeal... If he says he's gonna ban based off of something in the hut none of that matters until they actually do it

i'm not gonna talk about the deedubya example in full because it isn't fit to do so here but i don't recommend basing your argument off of anything he says

[XivilaiAnaxes]

Oh it's nothing to with what he said, but how admins dogpiled to rewrite his comment for him.

Also, considering I recall someone being deadminned for making a joke (in discord if I recall?) "I can just ban people for no reason and nobody would ever know", it could be argued hutposting can be taken with at least a degree of seriousness.

[Armhulen]

Alright I see that, There's no reason why a ban appeal can be a simple report and move on and feedback has to be a whole debacle

[oranges]

Okay but this is about the An0n3 amendment, not admin feedback so please make your own thread.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I dont know why people are acting confused as to what oranges means, I feel like he stated his issue very clearly.

I dont agree with him but he certainly isnt ambiguous.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Oh it's nothing to with what he said, but how admins dogpiled to rewrite his comment for him.

that was one admin and they got smacked down instantly by the forum mods

[peoplearestrange]

Don't be obtuse...

I'm not going to discuss specifics, as the rule are quite clear that this forum is not for that.

Ok that's perfectly fair.

Then what I will say is that I believe the very reason a peanut policy is required is the same reason we don't let all observers in game answer ahelps.
By which I mean a standard of at least minimum level of professionalism and a not this air of "I'm a player who's been round the block and I'm better than you" which I've seen from a fair few players that even abide by the current policy.

Imagine being a player who's never been to the forums, you do something stupid and you net yourself a short ban. You sign up to the forums and post your appeal.
Now imagine the first reply's to your thread are some older players/forum warriors who post something like "That's what you get you break the rules you fucking idiot" or "I don't think you understand X rule" or just straight up pure quoting the rules with no context. None of these things are helpful, they come across callous and snarky.

From what I imagined the amendment was for was to allow people to bring missed logs to light, to bring up recent policy changes that aren't reflected in the rules, to bring witness who were their into the thread, to actually help get the ban resolved correctly. NOT to just simply quote the rules everyone (should have) read, NOT to put their own thoughts on how the rules should be interpreted (policy discussion), NOT to simply antagonise the appealer or admin involved, NOT to assign judgement on a player simply because you personally don't like them and basically NOT to backseat admin.

Because honestly out of 90% of the deleted messages or unapproved comments they have mostly fallen into to those. I haven't seen many, if any, recently deleted/unapproved comments that in anyway would have shaped the ban in a positive way.