An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

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
SkeletalElite
 
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:14 pm
Byond Username: SkeletalElite
Github Username: SkeletalElite

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby SkeletalElite » Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:18 pm #553644

peoplearestrange wrote:
oranges wrote:
peoplearestrange wrote: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.


But bans also set precedent, if an admin is setting a bad precedent with a ban currently the only thing you can do is try and make a thinly veiled policy discussion and hope it doesn't get removed on the grounds that policy discussion isn't a place to discuss appeals.



User avatar
peoplearestrange
 
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:02 pm
Location: UK
Byond Username: Peoplearestrange

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby peoplearestrange » Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:00 pm #553661

That might be true, except I haven't really seen many, if any cases where someone's (be it uninvolved admin or another uninvolved player) comment addressed this, its usually attacking the player or the admin or thinly vailed to pretend its not that.

I would argue that making policy discussion better and taken more seriously would be a better solution than allowing everyone to dogpile on a thread. And mainly having many many personal opinions thrown into a ban appeal not only makes the actual appeal hard to find relevant information, but also can end up derailing threads hugely. Making the ban appeal become essentially a second policy discussion.
Whatever
Spoiler:
oranges wrote:singulo.io is the center point of rational and calm debate, where much of tg's issues are worked out in a fun and family friendly environment

miggles wrote:it must have been quite the accomplishment, killing a dead butterfly

WeeYakk wrote:If you take a step back from everything watching the community argue janitor related changes is one of the most surreal and hilarious things about this game. Four pages of discussing the merits of there being too much or too little dirt in a video game.

Operative wrote:Vote PAS for headmin! Get cucked and feel good getting cucked.

TheNightingale wrote:I want to get off Mr. Scones's Wild Ride...

NikNakFlak wrote:Excuse you, I was doing intentional bug testing for the well being of the server. I do not make mistakes.

Fragnostic wrote:stop cucking the first shitshow ever that revolved around me.
This is my moment, what are you doing?!

Anonmare wrote:Oranges gestures at the thread, it shudders and begins to move!

Saegrimr wrote:
callanrockslol wrote:all you have to do is ban shitters until the playbase improves/ceases to exist, whichever comes first.

IM TRYING

Screemonster wrote:hellmoo is the mud for grown adults who main reaper in overwatch

Kor wrote:
confused rock wrote:...its like if we made fire extinguishers spawn in emergency boxes and have them heal you when you put out fires rather than them being in wall storages...


Are you having a stroke

bandit wrote:you are now manually GLORFing

MrStonedOne wrote:The best part about the election is when I announce my pick because I'm just as surprised as everybody else.

PM:[USER]->IrishWristWatch0: Yeah, im make it on but how im make the station to to sun and not go to sun

OOC: Francinum: Five Rounds at PAS's
"You are destinied to defeat Dr. Uguu and his 5 Robot Masters
(All-Access-Man, ShootyBlackCoat Man, ChloralHydrate Man, Singulo Man and TeleportArmor Man)"

I'm a box

User avatar
PKPenguin321
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:02 pm
Location: U S A, U S A, U S A
Byond Username: PKPenguin321
Github Username: PKPenguin321

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby PKPenguin321 » Mon Apr 06, 2020 11:06 pm #553672

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

Obviously, but if you can't cite any kind of precedent where this is an issue, I can't say I believe a problem even exists.
i play Lauser McMauligan. clown name is Cold-Ass Honkey
i have three other top secret characters as well.
tell the best admin how good he is
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
oranges
Code Maintainer
 
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:16 pm
Location: #CHATSHITGETBANGED
Byond Username: Optimumtact
Github Username: optimumtact

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby oranges » Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:39 am #553687

I'm quite sure you would choose to believe that

User avatar
PKPenguin321
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:02 pm
Location: U S A, U S A, U S A
Byond Username: PKPenguin321
Github Username: PKPenguin321

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby PKPenguin321 » Tue Apr 07, 2020 3:48 am #553688

oranges wrote:I'm quite sure you would choose to believe that

Yes, because it's important that I can trust my own judgement and have it pointed out to me when it falters. Would you maybe want to PM me where something went wrong?
i play Lauser McMauligan. clown name is Cold-Ass Honkey
i have three other top secret characters as well.
tell the best admin how good he is
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Sometinyprick
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:24 pm
Byond Username: STP

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby Sometinyprick » Tue Apr 07, 2020 9:05 pm #553798

The core problem with the policy imo is that it leaves little room for opinion, when an admins ban in essence is an opinion of itself most of the time, sometimes you have clear cut bans where a player is just being a fucking numpty and that's all well and good but other times the situation isn't as clear and admins are far from infallible so they can make the wrong call I've done it myself and I've had a player convince me using log reports that I made a mistake. My point being that if a player other than the banned person in question can come along and put forward a reasonable argument using evidence (i.e server logs) we shouldn't be removing it because it's an "opinion"
i play leo bonhart, feel free to grief me

User avatar
XivilaiAnaxes
 
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 7:13 am
Byond Username: XivilaiAnaxes

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby XivilaiAnaxes » Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:20 pm #553815

To be honest, as someone who procrastinates on ban appeals and skirts on the positive side of peanut I could just use the current sec ban for cremation thread.

Imo this is a terrible terrible ban but I can't post that because it would go under peanut (the officer responded with a sorta low effort round removal to a grey shirt giving plain low effort, why on earth should he get punished for not giving a good faith response to flat out bad faith play from the grey shirt?).

But given the current peanut in NTR it's sorta obvious everyone would just dogpile on florran for his judgement even if some of us can maintain a professional veneer in a reply.

Peanut does help keep the appeals clean, you'd have to have some subjective line about ad hominem if you wanted to lean it more in the direction of "opinion allowed" - probably a bunch of other fairly subjective rules too, which would also be at the mercy of the admin in how they're applied.

User avatar
peoplearestrange
 
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 12:02 pm
Location: UK
Byond Username: Peoplearestrange

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby peoplearestrange » Wed Apr 08, 2020 2:26 pm #553890

Perhaps the soltion to this is (as has started to happen) is that mods and admins discuss peanuts/approvals etc allowing for more of a general consensus.
Maybe easing back on certain things.

I still am firmly behind that the peanut rule is useful, I've yet to see another server that doesn't have this rule and it work well.
Whatever
Spoiler:
oranges wrote:singulo.io is the center point of rational and calm debate, where much of tg's issues are worked out in a fun and family friendly environment

miggles wrote:it must have been quite the accomplishment, killing a dead butterfly

WeeYakk wrote:If you take a step back from everything watching the community argue janitor related changes is one of the most surreal and hilarious things about this game. Four pages of discussing the merits of there being too much or too little dirt in a video game.

Operative wrote:Vote PAS for headmin! Get cucked and feel good getting cucked.

TheNightingale wrote:I want to get off Mr. Scones's Wild Ride...

NikNakFlak wrote:Excuse you, I was doing intentional bug testing for the well being of the server. I do not make mistakes.

Fragnostic wrote:stop cucking the first shitshow ever that revolved around me.
This is my moment, what are you doing?!

Anonmare wrote:Oranges gestures at the thread, it shudders and begins to move!

Saegrimr wrote:
callanrockslol wrote:all you have to do is ban shitters until the playbase improves/ceases to exist, whichever comes first.

IM TRYING

Screemonster wrote:hellmoo is the mud for grown adults who main reaper in overwatch

Kor wrote:
confused rock wrote:...its like if we made fire extinguishers spawn in emergency boxes and have them heal you when you put out fires rather than them being in wall storages...


Are you having a stroke

bandit wrote:you are now manually GLORFing

MrStonedOne wrote:The best part about the election is when I announce my pick because I'm just as surprised as everybody else.

PM:[USER]->IrishWristWatch0: Yeah, im make it on but how im make the station to to sun and not go to sun

OOC: Francinum: Five Rounds at PAS's
"You are destinied to defeat Dr. Uguu and his 5 Robot Masters
(All-Access-Man, ShootyBlackCoat Man, ChloralHydrate Man, Singulo Man and TeleportArmor Man)"

I'm a box

User avatar
terranaut
TGMC Lead
 
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 pm
Byond Username: Terranaut

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby terranaut » Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:26 pm #554129

peoplearestrange wrote:Perhaps the soltion to this is (as has started to happen) is that mods and admins discuss peanuts/approvals etc allowing for more of a general consensus.
Maybe easing back on certain things.

I still am firmly behind that the peanut rule is useful, I've yet to see another server that doesn't have this rule and it work well.

I'm not sure why you deleted my post in Florans ban thread but pointing out the letter of a rule and that he is objectively ignoring it isn't peanut posting, and what people speak of when they say that forum jannies are overdoing it and the Anon3 amendment has been "weaponized".
Image

Tell me I'm a good monki: viewtopic.php?f=75&t=24558

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

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby Arianya » Thu Apr 09, 2020 7:45 pm #554194

terranaut wrote:
peoplearestrange wrote:Perhaps the soltion to this is (as has started to happen) is that mods and admins discuss peanuts/approvals etc allowing for more of a general consensus.
Maybe easing back on certain things.

I still am firmly behind that the peanut rule is useful, I've yet to see another server that doesn't have this rule and it work well.

I'm not sure why you deleted my post in Florans ban thread but pointing out the letter of a rule and that he is objectively ignoring it isn't peanut posting, and what people speak of when they say that forum jannies are overdoing it and the Anon3 amendment has been "weaponized".


Did someone say "second opinion"?

pointing out the letter of a rule


Yup, fine and covered by peanut policy.

and that he is objectively ignoring it


I'd take issue with your use of "objectively" here - and the reason why your post got deleted is most likely because of this - it's argumentation, not citation. You may think it's cut and dry and that objectively there's no other interpretation, but that's the point, it's just your opinion. And in the same way I would delete a post from, say, pas which was arguing for the ban, I would have deleted your post.

Sometinyprick wrote:The core problem with the policy imo is that it leaves little room for opinion, when an admins ban in essence is an opinion of itself most of the time, sometimes you have clear cut bans where a player is just being a fucking numpty and that's all well and good but other times the situation isn't as clear and admins are far from infallible so they can make the wrong call I've done it myself and I've had a player convince me using log reports that I made a mistake. My point being that if a player other than the banned person in question can come along and put forward a reasonable argument using evidence (i.e server logs) we shouldn't be removing it because it's an "opinion"


I think the core issue is that the opinion of most people (including other admins, players, forum warriors, etc etc) don't really matter in ban appeals. I don't say that as a elitism thing, but rather because ban appeals are for 3 sets of people:

a) The banned players, to get oversight and say their part on a ban
b) The banning admin, to defend their judgement and discuss the ban with the banned player
c) The headmins, to excercise oversight and ensure their policies are being enforced/followed

The group d) Posters who can post correctly within peanut policy - enrich ban appeals but the forum isn't technically for them. The reason why the ban appeals forum is publicly visible is for transparency and so players can have an idea of what admins are enforcing as well as what decisions headmins are making.

So, does the opinion of Johnny McAdams add much? Doesn't it make more sense to practice the representative democracy we have - which is that rather then every player/admin/other posting their opinion, the headmins that were elected as their representatives do it for them?

Also as someone whose posted in ban appeals before being an admin - adding logs even without argumentation tends to do the job, for or against a ban. I don't think delineating an exception for argumentation adds much and detracts a lot.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

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

User avatar
SkeletalElite
 
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:14 pm
Byond Username: SkeletalElite
Github Username: SkeletalElite

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby SkeletalElite » Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:55 am #554269

Arianya wrote:So, does the opinion of Johnny McAdams add much? Doesn't it make more sense to practice the representative democracy we have - which is that rather then every player/admin/other posting their opinion, the headmins that were elected as their representatives do it for them?

Also as someone whose posted in ban appeals before being an admin - adding logs even without argumentation tends to do the job, for or against a ban. I don't think delineating an exception for argumentation adds much and detracts a lot.


That's like saying you shouldn't protest/contact your representatives because you're not practicing a representative democracy by telling your representatives what you think.

Not that it can't add to the appeal, but when you're just quoting a rule/log/ect. it can make sense to explain how that rule applies. The rules in most cases are very general, but bans can get into the nuance of a rule. You can only directly quote the rules so much without adding the interpretation of that rule to what you're saying. That's where the precedent setting part of a ban comes in, which is often inherently opinionated.

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

Re: An0n3 amendment has become weaponised by the admin team

Postby capn_monkeypaw » Fri Apr 10, 2020 5:48 am #554302

We will not be making any changes to the rules governing ban appeal thread posts during this term. Players that wish to comment on currently open appeals in a manner not prescribed by these rules are welcome to do so in the NTR hut.

To refresh everyone's memory, the Anon3/Peanut Post amendment reads as follows:
Timbrewolf wrote: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.

To expand on the above, posts in ban appeals from uninvolved parties are much more likely to be accepted when they are based upon and accompanied by one or more of the following:
  1. Directly quoted rules.
  2. Directly quoted and linked precedent.
  3. Log excerpts directly pertaining to the matter at hand.
For those of you who wish to logdive and post your findings, (bless you, the true heroes of this forum) please reference this guidance posted by MSO:
MrStonedOne wrote:New rules regarding the use of public logs in ban appeals, ban requests (if ever re-opened) and admin complaints:

  • The content of line must not be modified in any way.
    • This does not apply to adding context (as long as its clear that its added and not part of the original log)
    • Likewise, you are allowed to add formatting or emphasis as long as it does not appear deceptive
  • Any omissions of in between lines must be clearly marked in-line to the logs along with a brief description giving a rough amount of the lines removed, what they contained, and why they were removed
    • -snip-(500 lines of the clown slipping the hos in the other room removed for being irrelevant)
  • You must link to the log file you got the logs from to make it easier to validate the context
  • Air on the side of good faith, Its better to include too many context lines then not enough lines context lines
  • Expect onlookers to assume bad faith. If you omit details that are later deemed to be important people will assume you did it intentionally. This means doing due diligence when reviewing the logs for related or relevant bits.

Headmin Votes:
Coconutwarrior97: Aye.
Phuzzylodgik: Aye.
TWATICUS: Aye.

Previous

Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users