Inactive admins and returnal requisites

[MortoSasye]

This is more an effort to understand the logic behind the decision taken by the headmins than anything else. To those unaware, retired admins are being obliged to get a month of activity before being taken back in.

When speaking with Naloac about this, they explained that it was to avoid inactive admins. However, currently there's a high amount of inactive admins that are adminned, from which even some have connected only once every few months.

The only thing this will accomplish is people not retiring when they have to, remaining being an afk admin. It could be argued that some of the inactive admins are active in other ways, however, that does not excuse all of them.

I feel like retiring, the correct choice to pick when you can't admin anymore, leads to more trouble than just staying adminned.

Jimmius told me that he agreed but it wasn't up to him, so the remaining person to voice his perspective is Coconut, who doesn't reply each time headmins are pinged.

[Agux909]

I think this thread has been ignored long enough, and in light of the complaint I read today, I'm gonna use this opportunity to bump it:

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 23&t=29121

I'm not an admin but I don't need to be one to point out how embarrassing this situation is.
So, admins are retiring to take breaks, by the book, as it should be done, then are told they aren't allowed to return or are forced to wait nearly a month for a response? You guys for real?
So as Morto here has pointed out, is it better to never retire as admin? Is it better to remain inactive, since retiring means you might potentially not be received with open arms when you want to come back? Even if you did everything by the book? Even if you have a good history of adminning? Even if you were told you ARE welcome to rejoin the team at any time?

I don't care if I come up as offensive, I'm calling you three out. Naloac, Coconut, and even you, Jimmius. I don't know you guys personally but I can certainty say, you guys suck. As Headmins of course. The fact none of you even had the minimum consideration to respond to this thread shows it clearly. Were you guys just waiting for it to get buried under other 40 threads so you didn't have to deal with it until the next election? Maybe you just missed it? But how? Aren't you the Headmins? Me being a complete rando, am I more aware than you about the things happening in the forums where policy gets usually debated and decided upon? Eh, I don't think so.

Maybe it's too much to ask, after all I don't really know how "busy" your lives might be right now to pay enough attention to this autistic 2D spessgame forum. But can you guys at least pull your heads out of your asses for a minute to adress this thread at least? This is obviously something that needs a policy revision, it's kinda important you know. Please?

Thanks in advance.

[Pandarsenic]

I'm not actually sure if I find a month excessive for people who have been gone a long time.

Anyone who's been gone less than a year, though? They should be able to get caught up casually in asay.

[Tlaltecuhtli]

is having 1 month of activity before asking that hard?

[Coconutwarrior97]

I'll respond to this soon, apologies for the wait.

[Naloac]

When speaking with Naloac about this, they explained that it was to avoid inactive admins. However, currently there's a high amount of inactive admins that are adminned, from which even some have connected only once every few months.

If anything you seem to be agreeing with my point. We have inactive admins and shouldnt be adminning more people whos activity is a near unknown to make the problem worse.

ARE welcome to rejoin the team at any time?

This means nothing. As pointed out by MSO in the thread you linked.

A month of activity is no where near *Too much* to ask for. Since we wont admin new people if they dont have it so why should we admin old people that dont have it.

Were you guys just waiting for it to get buried under other 40 threads so you didn't have to deal with it until the next election? Maybe you just missed it?

Just because your a forum goblin who sits in here reading all the threads doesnt mean we dont read them too *also policy bus where we talk about them*. We just do everything else aswell related to headminning so we dont spend all our time giving our hot uninformed takes on the forums. Adminning admins is up to the headmins and we decide on everyone who goes in and who goes out.

For why I didnt specifically reply I dont see this thread as very important since its effectively an admin stamping their feet because they didnt get instantly readminned when they asked because they couldnt clear the small step hurdle of connecting for a month. Something we hold admin candidates to.

In other words, Get the high horses cock outta your ass.

[MortoSasye]

For why I didnt specifically reply I dont see this thread as very important since its effectively an admin stamping their feet because they didnt get instantly readminned when they asked because they couldnt clear the small step hurdle of connecting for a month. Something we hold admin candidates to.

In other words, Get the high horses cock outta your ass.

It started with that, but the purpose was not me getting readminned again. It was to ask for an explanation for the logic of "let's ask for high activity for returning admins, while ignoring the admins that haven't connected in months".

There are currently a high number of those in the team, including one that has been inactive for two years now, connecting once every three months to maintain the rank.

I'm asking why you guys aren't using the same logic with the existing admins. No need to be rude Naloac!

[Naloac]

words

We should be applying the same logic to all admins, its just not entirely up to me. So I wont make the existing problem worse.

[Agux909]

ARE welcome to rejoin the team at any time?

This means nothing. As pointed out by MSO in the thread you linked.

A month of activity is no where near *Too much* to ask for. Since we wont admin new people if they dont have it so why should we admin old people that dont have it.

Were you guys just waiting for it to get buried under other 40 threads so you didn't have to deal with it until the next election? Maybe you just missed it?

Just because your a forum goblin who sits in here reading all the threads doesnt mean we dont read them too *also policy bus where we talk about them*. We just do everything else aswell related to headminning so we dont spend all our time giving our hot uninformed takes on the forums. Adminning admins is up to the headmins and we decide on everyone who goes in and who goes out.

For why I didnt specifically reply I dont see this thread as very important since its effectively an admin stamping their feet because they didnt get instantly readminned when they asked because they couldnt clear the small step hurdle of connecting for a month. Something we hold admin candidates to.

In other words, Get the high horses cock outta your ass.

You know what? You're right. I apologize to the three of you for the aggressive tone in my post. It's just most of the times I lack info and context and tend to make big things out of nothing, because I get a different view of what's happening. But I was wrong in my attitude. I don't actually think you guys suck, I'm pretty sure you're doing the best of your ability in the context of administrating this game community.

I still want to know where this leaves the policy though. The disconnect between retired and inactive admin standards is, as you've acknowledged, an obvious problem.

[Naloac]

It's just most of the times I lack info and context and tend to make big things out of nothing, because I get a different view of what's happening.

This is something everyone will do, dont feel to bad about it. its because alot of the admin process is so clouded in mystery half the time and *norms* change between term to term.

I still want to know where this leaves the policy though. The disconnect between retired and inactive admin standards is, as you've acknowledged, an obvious problem.

Generally when I admin new admins, they have to *but not always* have to have around 1000 hours, minimal notes and a month of activity. I have always since I was a game admin thought that inactive admins arent great and should just be removed. We've got alot of admin trainers and an easy ability to get good knowledgeable players to join the team.

The problem with deadminning inactive people is what I think is inactive, *generally a few months with less than 15-30 hours* is different for each admin. of course people who do other things for us like forum moderate, discord jannie and such get special exemptions but generally I think 15-30 hours for a good few months is getting around *inactive*

Other jannies will disagree with this though.

[iamgoofball]

However, currently there's a high amount of inactive admins that are adminned, from which even some have connected only once every few months.

Why do these admins still have their roles? If the mandatory requirement for being an admin is "log in at least once a month, anywhere", then why do we let admins stay admins when they don't do this?

[MrStonedOne]

The term you all are looking for is Hysteresis.

In thermostats, for example, the hysteresis is the difference between the temperature required to activate the thermostat, and the temperature required to deactivate it.

If you had a heater, set to 68f (20c), having it turn off at 68.1 and turn on at 68.0 would be super wasteful, and wear down the heater much quicker. So instead, it will turn on at 67, and turn off at 69.

There would be a fuck huge amount of comes and goes if we tried to maintain the exact standard of activity to both incoming admins and current admins. just bookkeeping all of the comes and goes would take up a non-trivial amount of the headmins times.

The standard applied to existing admins will always be less then the standard applied to incoming admins. This can not be helped.

That being said, the argument that the difference between them is so extreme has some merit.

[MrStonedOne]

However, currently there's a high amount of inactive admins that are adminned, from which even some have connected only once every few months.

Why do these admins still have their roles? If the mandatory requirement for being an admin is "log in at least once a month, anywhere", then why do we let admins stay admins when they don't do this?

Because 1 headmin can veto an incoming admin, but all 3 headmins have to agree on a demotion.

[MrStonedOne]

However, currently there's a high amount of inactive admins that are adminned, from which even some have connected only once every few months.

Why do these admins still have their roles? If the mandatory requirement for being an admin is "log in at least once a month, anywhere", then why do we let admins stay admins when they don't do this?

Also you might be taking their word too literal, they aren't a headmin right now and likely have no concrete data around this outside of what they remember from their first stint.

Also its kinda off topic to this thread.

[Pandarsenic]

generally I think 15-30 hours for a good few months is getting around *inactive*

If someone has a full-time job and thus only plays weekends, 28 hours for 3 months would still be 7 hours every weekend. At that point, I'd be worried that they're not spending enough time on other things.

[oranges]

does naloac have a job or other pursuits in life?

[Naloac]

generally I think 15-30 hours for a good few months is getting around *inactive*

If someone has a full-time job and thus only plays weekends, 28 hours for 3 months would still be 7 hours every weekend. At that point, I'd be worried that they're not spending enough time on other things.

Im not trying to be rude but ive 0 idea what you mean by this. 3 months with say 1 hour each weekend day *about the length of one round* would fall into my ballpark of being fine

does naloac have a job or other pursuits in life?

yes c: like https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgaGfr ... yO_6zgH6jw

like and subscribe

[imsxz]

let me in

[Nabski]

generally I think 15-30 hours for a good few months is getting around *inactive*

If someone has a full-time job and thus only plays weekends, 28 hours for 3 months would still be 7 hours every weekend. At that point, I'd be worried that they're not spending enough time on other things.

Im not trying to be rude but ive 0 idea what you mean by this. 3 months with say 1 hour each weekend day *about the length of one round* would fall into my ballpark of being fine

does naloac have a job or other pursuits in life?

yes c: like https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgaGfr ... yO_6zgH6jw

like and subscribe

Now I'm somehow still confused on this math. It's 30 hours over 3 months is considered active, not 30 hour hours per month for three months.

Spoiler:

Despite having "quit" the game for the past few months, I still managed that first one but not the second.

[Pandarsenic]

generally I think 15-30 hours for a good few months is getting around *inactive*

If someone has a full-time job and thus only plays weekends, 28 hours for 3 months would still be 7 hours every weekend. At that point, I'd be worried that they're not spending enough time on other things.

Im not trying to be rude but ive 0 idea what you mean by this. 3 months with say 1 hour each weekend day *about the length of one round* would fall into my ballpark of being fine

Oh shit I completely misread you as "15-30 hours per month is low activity, and if you sustain that for a few months, that is what I would call an active/inactive/low-activity/borderline admin" instead of "15-30 hours spread across 3+ total months, meaning 5-10 hours per month"

Thank you for your patience, reporting to my Shame Cube now

[Coconutwarrior97]

I dont really have any activity standards for readminning. Mostly I just determine my stance based on if I think the admin is good and fits well with the team, as well as if it seems healthy for them to be on it. Like MSO said, since readminning can be vetoed by one headmin their standards end up being part of the readmin requirement. This is also how it works for adding admins to the team. I prefer it this way since ensuring our team is filled with good admins who work well with their teammembers is very important to me.

[Agux909]

I dont really have any activity standards for readminning. Mostly I just determine my stance based on if I think the admin is good and fits well with the team, as well as if it seems healthy for them to be on it. Like MSO said, since readminning can be vetoed by one headmin their standards end up being part of the readmin requirement. This is also how it works for adding admins to the team. I prefer it this way since ensuring our team is filled with good admins who work well with their teammembers is very important to me.

This is good and all for you to do, but it still doesn't adress the core point this thread is trying to clear up. Let me put it in an easier way:

Say X and Y are admins with, just for the sake of this example, identical behavior. Both are burned out from being admins, which made them become a tad toxic and unlikeable lately, they make mistakes and aren't treating players very well. There aren't any complaints yet, but their actions as admins is indeed questionable. Both decide to take a break for Z time, before their attitudes get bad enough that they need to get called out for it.
The difference is X just logs off and dissapears, barely even mentioning they are considering taking a break, and Y actually retires, effectively making it public to everyone they need the break because they're burned out and are officially getting off the train for a while. Neither of them play during the break, nor do anything related to TG.

Z time passes, X never retired so they just keep adminning as usual. Y comes back but they are told they need a month or more because their behavior when retiring was questionable, that their behavior needs to be reviewed to judge if they are now fit to get back into the team.

So this is the disconnect of standards that keeps getting mentioned. Why retire at all if just staying as admin potentially lets you off the hook for these kind of things? Why does retiring even exist then? "If you want to retire just stay inactive, you will eventually get deadminned for it anyway"

Now, if you tell me you either wouldn't allow X to stay adminned after being inactive for so long, or that you would immediately accept Y back into the team without any kind of trouble, then I guess I'd have to swallow my doubts and believe you. But it should either be:

1_ X and Y both can keep adminning. Y can return back to the team without issue, "effective immediately". Same standards applied.
2_ X gets deadminned after about Z time of complete inactivity, Y isn't allowed to return immediately. Both are asked to at least get a month or so of playtime to review their value as players and admins. Same standards applied.

Of course these are hypotetical absolutes, and the situation will probably never happen as I described in my example, but responding to this example is the first step to clear up what this thread wanted to clear up in the first place. Here the admins are the same, the only difference is retiring vs remaining inactive. Different standards shouldn't be applied to these two "just because".

So what equitable standard do you apply to both of them?
Or maybe it's impossible to apply the same standard because you signed an arbitrary contract on it and you are low-key saying "psst, don't retire, it's harder to come back from it, just stay inactive, we won't mind unless it's more than 4 months"?

[Coconutwarrior97]

words

I just had to make an image of this because god I am partially losing my mind here.

We actively discuss issues with administrators when we notice them. People can retire if they want, it exists because people want to leave sometimes and its literally just a term for "Hey Im leaving, bye." This question is so hard to answer because theres too many damn variables and again, dumbing it down to this level just takes them out of the equation when they SHOULD be there because in the end theyre what in large part determine my decision.

This really isn't that complicated and I refuse to write out a set in stone standard for what we deem acceptable enough standard to be readminned, because just like in-game, shit varies.

I spoke in private with Morto about my reasoning, and I think they were satisfied with my answer. As MSO pointed out in the complaint we had pretty damn good reasons to deny Elyina's return. Woe betide us because maybe we miss someone who has been inactive for a year, then someone who we learn was a massive dick or whatever comes back and we deny them.

I will now breakdown my logic,

"Oh dang they've been gone for like a year, probably time to deadmin them."
"Who the hell is this? Lets ask past headmins. Oh they caused a massive amount of drama? Better deny them."

This is a space game, and I just use my best to use common sense with these decisions. At the end of the day I'm going to ask you to trust that I do my best because I outright refuse to make some "same standard" because that sounds extremely stupid, unflexible and probably won't take into account every variable.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Agux909]

Okay

[Coconutwarrior97]

These will vary from term, and are generally down to the standards each individual headmin has for a returning admin. These past 3 terms, if one headmin denies a return, they are denied the return. So it ends up being a potential returning headmin must meet the standards of all 3 headmins.
Though this could change for the future if a term decides to change it to something like majority approval.

Headmin Votes:
Coconutwarrior97: Yes.
Jimmius: Yes.
Naloac: Abstain, on vacation.

Headmin Elect Vote:
NamelessFairy: Yes.