Should appeals continue to be decided by the responsible administrator?

[BONERMASTER]

First of all, good day, I welcome you to this discussion!



As is currently policy, appeals of any kind are always made to the responsible administrator in question. In some circumstances, head administrators will overrule the decision that was made. A strict code of conduct is enforced, where parties not related to the case may only provide information (such as providing logs). As it is, the administrator issuing the punishment can fully approve or decline the appeal entirely on his own volition.

This system is by far not perfect. Administrators, particularly in highly emotional and stressful cases, are likely to have a very negative bias to the person that is appealing to them. In addition, there is no oversight in the entire process outside of head administrators intervening with their decision, which is known to take a substantial amount of time, specifically, several days to weeks. Outside of these interventions, which are arguably very sporadic, there is virtually no protective mechanism and legislative body that ensures that appeals are conducted in a fair manner to the person appealing.


I believe, these are concerns that warrant discussion for a new policy change.



This thread aims to discuss and answer the following points:


1. Is the tenet of neutrality upheld by administrators deciding their own appeals?


2. What role should administrators have in their own cases?


3. How would administrators be selected to stand in for these appeals?


4. Alternatively, should appeals be left in their current state, instead of introducing new structural changes, such as for example, a jury system?



Here, I would request everyone to please keep their tone civil and refrain from any insults and to provoke fights in this thread. I would like the points raised in the opening statement to be the central points guiding the discussion, and I am very much looking forward to your opinions and how this discussion will unfold!


With warm regards
-BONERMASTER

[BONERMASTER]

- PLACEHOLDER -

[Armhulen]

1. Is the tenet of neutrality upheld by administrators deciding their own appeals?
neutrality in what? admins have confidence in bans they make, it's inherently not "neutral"

2. What role should administrators have in their own cases?
a very large one, admins have the full story, appealers usually have 3/4th to the full story, other admins have half the story, peanut threads have a quarter

3. How would administrators be selected to stand in for these appeals?
lmao, well i'll leave that riddle for someone who wants that

4. Alternatively, should appeals be left in their current state, instead of introducing new structural changes, such as for example, a jury system?
honestly the only thing that needs to change is that off topic needs to be broken up into off topic and the hut and the off topic keeps the peanuts. we can't have ironic spam and just joshing and serious and angryposting collide, it seriously makes off topic horrible sometimes when people both pretend they're kidding and act 100% serious

[wesoda25]

Yes they know the most about the situation.

[Lazengann]

If I beefed it and banned someone when I shouldn't have I'd want the opportunity to correct it and apologize

[technokek]

[Gigapuddi420]

going to just skip to 4. and say the system is fine as it is.

It's a formal system to try and convince the banning admin to reduce or overturn their own ban, should that fail and you disagree with their verdict the appeal still acts as a place to argue the case and appeal to a higher authority. Most appeals you'll deal with are fairly open and shut from people just coming to the forums to explain their actions or looking for clemency and the banning admin is in the best position to remember the circumstances and resolve the issue. In the case of a bad ban admins can be pressured to correct their mistakes or the headmins of the day can overrule.

[BONERMASTER]

Wesoda, thank you for your answer. I do have the following point I would like to raise to this statement:

Yes they know the most about the situation.

Do you believe that an administrator would never lie or misrepresent you in their case?

While they likely do know the most about the situation, you are blindly trusting them to use that knowledge for a fair process. Would you not agree, that there is a conflict of interest between appealing to the same person that punished you? Why wouldn't they just use the knowledge they have to justify their case, instead of giving your side a fair assessment?



Moving on,
Armhulen, thank you for submitting your reply. I would like to address your statements:

4. Alternatively, should appeals be left in their current state, instead of introducing new structural changes, such as for example, a jury system?

honestly the only thing that needs to change is that off topic needs to be broken up into off topic and the hut and the off topic keeps the peanuts. we can't have ironic spam and just joshing and serious and angryposting collide, it seriously makes off topic horrible sometimes when people both pretend they're kidding and act 100% serious

While I do agree that there are certain issues with this board, particularly in regards to peanutposting and subsequent "pot-stirring", I would like to keep this discussion more on track with what changes and improvements we could make to the existing appeal process. By improving the appeal process, by extension, it could improve the sometimes hostile attitude of the board in question.

2. What role should administrators have in their own cases?

a very large one, admins have the full story, appealers usually have 3/4th to the full story, other admins have half the story, peanut threads have a quarter

I do agree that the admin responsible for issuing the punishment would be aware of the details and incidents leading up to this point. However, would they not be required to make a convincing case not only for themselves, but to the people around them? If an administrator was acting as an expert witness and recollecting what they observed and why they believed that their actions were just, would that not satisfy the importance of their position?

1. Is the tenet of neutrality upheld by administrators deciding their own appeals?

neutrality in what? admins have confidence in bans they make, it's inherently not "neutral"

Neutrality is meant as in "forming an unbiased assessment of the situation and coming to a fair conclusion", so just for the record, are you, as a gamemaster of this server, admitting that the appeal process is unfair towards the person appealing?


With warm regards
-BONERMASTER

[wesoda25]

Yes they know the most about the situation.

But that is only because the administrators designed the system to be that way. If we had public logs and notes/bans everyone could do it.

No, it’s because they’re the one who investigated the situation. All admins are privy to the same information, yet at the time of appeal the banning one is pretty much always the person most familiar with the situation.

Do you believe that an administrator would never lie or misrepresent you in their case?

While they likely do know the most about the situation, you are blindly trusting them to use that knowledge for a fair process. Would you not agree, that there is a conflict of interest between appealing to the same person that punished you? Why wouldn't they just use the knowledge they have to justify their case, instead of giving your side a fair assessment?

This is why headmins exist.

[PKPenguin321]

a fucking jury system, really?
sorry honey but we're going to have to sell the house. i was called in for fucking video game jury duty and missed work and got fired. apparently it's considered an "unacceptable absence" clearly because they do not have any gamers who would understand me at the air control tower where i work.

[BONERMASTER]

This is why headmins exist.

Wesoda, I do not understand the answer to the question that was posed. Again: Do you believe that an administrator would never lie or misrepresent you in their case?

a fucking jury system, really?
sorry honey but we're going to have to sell the house. i was called in for fucking video game jury duty and missed work and got fired. apparently it's considered an "unacceptable absence" clearly because they do not have any gamers who would understand me at the air control tower where i work.

May I please remind everyone to keep their tone civil and polite during this discussion:

Here, I would request everyone to please keep their tone civil and refrain from any insults and to provoke fights in this thread.

With warm regards
-BONERMASTER

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I believe that they should, because they generally know what was going on better than any other admin, and if another admin knows better what was going on they will probbably show up in about 0.5 seconds to style on everyone else with their extra knowledge.

Ban appeals have two possible stages,

1) Convince the banning admin that they were wrong to ban you, or that circumstances have changed and you no longer deserve to be banned
2) Convince the head admins that the banning admin was wrong to ban you, or that you no longer deserve to be banned and the banning admin isn't giving you a fair deal by denying the appeal

[technokek]

[Gigapuddi420]

This is why headmins exist.

Wesoda, I do not understand the answer to the question that was posed. Again: Do you believe that an administrator would never lie or misrepresent you in their case?

May I please remind everyone to keep their tone civil and polite during this discussion.

[Agux909]

This thread is the perfect reason why the ruling admin should not be the only person handling the case.
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29507

This is an exception and not the norm Techno, in this case Headmins should've been quicker to address this specific case of admin misshandling, so it's not really the appeal system that failed.

Now to the OP:

The banning admin is the one that has to take responsability for their actions and justify/address them properly if confronted about them in an appeal. They know the context and train of thought that led them to make the call in the first place.

Delegating this resposability to other admins that didn't make the call and just read some logs would be kinda nuts.
It also removes weight from the banning admin's decision, since they can't be proven to be wrong nor learn from their mistakes when they make a bad call if they aren't being put in the spotlight.

Leave as is.

[BONERMASTER]

Thank you Agux, you have a very interesting stance:

The banning admin is the one that has to take responsability for their actions and justify/address them properly if confronted about them in an appeal. They know the context and train of thought that led them to make the call in the first place.

Delegating this resposability to other admins that didn't make the call and just read some logs would be kinda nuts.

It also removes weight from the banning admin's decision, since they can't be proven to be wrong nor learn from their mistakes when they make a bad call if they aren't being put in the spotlight.

I believe you might have the wrong idea though, it is certainly not meant to mask admins behind the decision. Their role has yet to be ascertained in this thread, but they will definitely be named and make an appearance. I believe, it actually adds more transparency, because their reasoning will be put to scrutiny by the administrator standing in for them, so in that regard, misconduct will be much more likely to be spotted than otherwise. Would you agree with that?

Regarding this point specifically:

"Delegating this responsibility to other admins that didn't make the call and just read some logs would be kinda nuts."

Could you please elaborate on that?


With warm regards
-BONERMASTER

[Agux909]

Thank you Agux, you have a very interesting stance:

The banning admin is the one that has to take responsability for their actions and justify/address them properly if confronted about them in an appeal. They know the context and train of thought that led them to make the call in the first place.

Delegating this resposability to other admins that didn't make the call and just read some logs would be kinda nuts.

It also removes weight from the banning admin's decision, since they can't be proven to be wrong nor learn from their mistakes when they make a bad call if they aren't being put in the spotlight.

I believe you might have the wrong idea though, it is certainly not meant to mask admins behind the decision. Their role has yet to be ascertained in this thread, but they will definitely be named and make an appearance. I believe, it actually adds more transparency, because their reasoning will be put to scrutiny by the administrator standing in for them, so in that regard, misconduct will be much more likely to be spotted than otherwise. Would you agree with that?

I don't. I didn't mean to say that the admins would be "masking" their actions, just that it's a good practice for them to have full accountability of their own actions, while others can add factual information, or unbiased points to add missing context or to remind about precedents.

Having another admin take the stand for them takes away this crucial part of the appeal which is needed to know the whos, the wheres, the whens and whys of the ruling.

I don't know where this idea about the banning admin being put to more scrutiny comes from. The scrutiny still depends in part on the logs, but the other half is their reasoning, which is very important. The other admin won't inherently know their reasoning. So the banning admin will either have to brief them beforehand, which would be some absurd party preparation for an appeal, or then appear themselves and explain it anyway, but the whole deal will instead hinge on another admin's pov, discretion and reasoning?

Regarding this point specifically:

"Delegating this responsibility to other admins that didn't make the call and just read some logs would be kinda nuts."

Could you please elaborate on that?


With warm regards
-BONERMASTER

Yes. This isn't a court case. The admin doesn't need a defense to take a stand for them, it's ridiculous, nuts. Let them defend their ban by themself.
I know you love your court cases with many parties involved and such but this ain't it Mr. Boner.

[capn_monkeypaw]

Off the top of my head I can think of at least three appeals to my bans that I either reversed or reduced after going back and realizing that I was missing important context or had simply massively fucked up.

All appeals, particularly successful ones, provide a valuable opportunity for admins to outline and explain their investigative process. When admins take full, public responsibility for their own bans and take seriously the important job of justifying their actions in detail, mistakes quickly become self-evident.

Public, personal accountability is critical to maintaining trust with the community. Involving unrelated admins in the appeal process will only fuel accusations of cronyism and back-scratching. And rightfully so.

[Flatulent]

appeals should be ruled strictly according to marxist leninist ideology of people’s courts and lawyers assigned by the party

[CPTANT]

I would at least like the option to appeal to headmins directly. Nothing feels so shit as making a ban appeal and the banning admin is just convinced of himself being right despite all the evidence supplied pointing otherwise.

[Agux909]

I would at least like the option to appeal to headmins directly. Nothing feels so shit as making a ban appeal and the banning admin is just convinced of himself being right despite all the evidence supplied pointing otherwise.

If headmins won't overturn the ban when evidence supplied is showing the banning admin to be wrong, how do you expect more reliability from ALL bans/notes being able to be thrown their way?

[capn_monkeypaw]

I would at least like the option to appeal to headmins directly. Nothing feels so shit as making a ban appeal and the banning admin is just convinced of himself being right despite all the evidence supplied pointing otherwise.

In-thread requests for headmin review are almost always honored.

[PKPenguin321]

a fucking jury system, really?
sorry honey but we're going to have to sell the house. i was called in for fucking video game jury duty and missed work and got fired. apparently it's considered an "unacceptable absence" clearly because they do not have any gamers who would understand me at the air control tower where i work.

May I please remind everyone to keep their tone civil and polite during this discussion:

Here, I would request everyone to please keep their tone civil and refrain from any insults and to provoke fights in this thread.

not an argument

[Domitius]

Having administrators I feel take personal responsibility for their own ban appeals is a critical part of our team. Like many have already outlined it allows the admin to go over their investigative process and to compare notes with the appealer. Admins and Players are always free to ask for a Headmin to take a second look.

On another note I imagine not being able to handle your own ban appeals opens up the system for potential abuse. If I make a ban I should be willing and able to either handle the appeal myself or ask another admin to cover it. If I never need to worry about appeals I can make really cocky bans and let whatever admin takes over the appeal to pick up the pieces for me. We are a rather small community, I feel we don't need additional layers to make things more complicated. Headmins regularly look over ban appeals and call out ones that are poorly handled.

With that out of the way the actual questions.

1. Is the tenet of neutrality upheld by administrators deciding their own appeals?
Yes! It's done in a very public place with many admins looking over the data as well as the headmins.

2. What role should administrators have in their own cases?
Judge, Jury, and Executioner with the Headmins in the wings to call out foul play.

3. How would administrators be selected to stand in for these appeals?
Among us

4. Alternatively, should appeals be left in their current state, instead of introducing new structural changes, such as for example, a jury system?
Leave it as is. I understand the system may not be perfect in every regard but it's still very public, transparent, and I believe gives a fair chance for appeals made in good faith. Adding any additional complexity is just asinine for a funny atmos simulator.

[Stickymayhem]

I'd prefer a responsible administrator handle it than an irresponsible one

[sinfulbliss]

it seriously makes off topic horrible sometimes when people both pretend they're kidding and act 100% serious

I feel personally attacked.
Now time to respond seriously to the thread... (shoot I did it again)

It makes sense that admins would be inclined to side with their initial opinion on a ban over changing their mind after the appeal. That's because granting an appeal often (not always) involves admitting an oversight or some unknown context the admin wasn't aware of, which doesn't look great if it happens a lot. Insofar as bans are just a way to get players to write an appeal and engage about their behavior, granting the appeal (even partially) is commonplace and doesn't reflect poorly on the admin at all.

In the event the admin is acting biased towards their original decision despite a strong case in the appeal, headmins will get involved and if it's bad enough the admin might get a talking-to. So I think that's a good motivator for admins not to act in bad faith with the appeals, and likewise if they just make an honest mistake they probably will simply be overruled. I agree it would suck to be banned for a week or two while that process runs its course, but this is no different than how the justice system works in the US: people charged with crimes often have to sit in jail without bail waiting for the trial, even if they are innocent.

One possible monkeywrench is when headmins or the host directly handles the appeal. A headmin overruling an admin is normal, but I imagine a headmin would be less inclined to overrule another headmin, or MSO, unless the case is completely and undeniably irrefutable. Perhaps it is a weak point in the system for those who get the final word to also get the first word, but otherwise the system seems fairly solid.

[Cobby]

If you think a ban was placed erroneously why would you NOT want the person who fricked up look at the situation and realize their mistake vs someone who has even less stake in the situation and is even more likely to believe the fellow admin was in the right.

The ban appeal to complaints rule should probably be changed to “the appeal must be resolved and either be approved or denied without headmin input”, I could see where that might be some concern ig.

[Omega_DarkPotato]

As is currently policy, appeals of any kind are always made to the responsible administrator in question. In some circumstances, head administrators will overrule the decision that was made. A strict code of conduct is enforced, where parties not related to the case may only provide information (such as providing logs). As it is, the administrator issuing the punishment can fully approve or decline the appeal entirely on his own volition.

This system is by far not perfect. Administrators, particularly in highly emotional and stressful cases, are likely to have a very negative bias to the person that is appealing to them. In addition, there is no oversight in the entire process outside of head administrators intervening with their decision, which is known to take a substantial amount of time, specifically, several days to weeks. Outside of these interventions, which are arguably very sporadic, there is virtually no protective mechanism and legislative body that ensures that appeals are conducted in a fair manner to the person appealing.

I'd like to imagine that thanks to the lengthy process of accepting admins #1 is a moot point. Unless you have some evidence for your claim of a "very negative bias to the person appealing", (in which case, I'm sure the thread would love to see it) I don't think this is a real valid argument. Aside from "bro you look bad if a ban is overturned", there is *no* benefit for an admin to have a high ban rate or for a specific ban to stick. Hell, if someone's case is valid, you might have more to gain by admitting you fucked up and reverting it politely. The peanut threads on three-post ban appeals of the appeal, an admin saying sorry, and the appealer saying "thanks" never goes far because nobody's going to bitch at the admin for having the responsibility to admit to a fuckup - compare that to the times when a ban's on less-than-steady ground and takes a while to get reverted by a headmin.

if point one's "yes", then point two should pretty clearly be "the one accepting or denying the appeal". If they're neutral, they also have the most information about the case, and as such, are the best option to go for.

Three is irrelevant because of two and one. It's also fucking stupid. Other admins can already chime in whenever they want with log data - and so can other users, in case they think someone's not getting a fair shake and they've got logs to prove that they're not.

Four: now's a good time for a reminder that juries must be impartial to be NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST. For particularly in/famous users, finding administrators or players who would be able to take a "completely impartial" take on this may be a little harder - and it certainly adds in a lot of ground for people to yell at, even if it was perfectly done. If you want another look at your case by someone you helped to vote for, ask for a headmin.

Wesoda, thank you for your answer. I do have the following point I would like to raise to this statement:

Yes they know the most about the situation.

Do you believe that an administrator would never lie or misrepresent you in their case?

While they likely do know the most about the situation, you are blindly trusting them to use that knowledge for a fair process. Would you not agree, that there is a conflict of interest between appealing to the same person that punished you? Why wouldn't they just use the knowledge they have to justify their case, instead of giving your side a fair assessment?

honestly this thread reads like you're making a ton of claims to throw shit at admins - "what if they DID lie???" "They likely have a VERY NEGATIVE BIAS"
We have robust, publicly available logging and easily-accessible ticket systems. If someone's lying, call them out on it. Making these very unsubtly-veiled suggestions that administrators could be lying to "get someone in trouble" or suggesting that they're "conspiring against someone" is idiotic.
I'm a fucking player and I can tell you now that I'd trust anyone in the admin system here a lot more than I could ever trust any of the admins on the old SCPRP server that I was equivalent to headmin in for two years.

[sinfulbliss]

Unless you have some evidence for your claim of a "very negative bias to the person appealing", (in which case, I'm sure the thread would love to see it)

Instructing client not to answer. Object to form. Move to strike. Filing for harassment under 30(d).

[Rohen_Tahir]

Yes they know the most about the situation.

But that is only because the administrators designed the system to be that way. If we had public logs and notes/bans everyone could do it.

Wrong. Only the banning admin trully knows the reasoning behind the punishment applied. This makes it way easier to correct misunderstandings, deal with R0 stuff, interpret vague notes etc.

[BONERMASTER]

First of all, thank you all for voicing your opinions on this matter. As the creator of this thread, I do believe that the idea has merit, but I do attempt to lead the discussion more as a moderator, without getting too attached to the idea. If you have any qualms about it, know that the questions that I pose serve to answer certain problems or dilemmas until they have been satisfied.


An argument that I have heard here numerous times now is that administrators will be held less responsible, and they would not have any chance to reflect on their actions. This to me seems strange, because you are alleging that an admin not handling his own appeal would not have to put forth answers or be reprimanded in any way?

The process intends to hold administrators to more responsibility, their train of thought leading up the punishment would require to convince another uninvolved administrator for the punishment to be accepted, and then they would need to evaluate the appeal seperately from that.
If, as has been suggested, administrators started issuing poor bans because they are not the main lead in the appeal, they will simply be caught by the other administrator??

I would like to ask for elaboration on how this system would allow admins more leeway for abuse.


I'd also like to point out, that personal reflection and learning would be possible all the same, perhaps even more so, because you will not only have to convince yourself that an action is right, but also a neutral third person, which means your decision must be just.

Why do you believe that having a third party review your conduct and decision would not lead you to improve yourself as an administrator at least as much as with the current system?


To quickly address DarkPotato's post:

I'm a fucking player and I can tell you now that I'd trust anyone in the admin system here a lot more than I could ever trust any of the admins on the old SCPRP server that I was equivalent to headmin in for two years.

If you trust anyone in the admin system, then you shouldn't have a problem trusting another admin to take a fair look at your case, no?
Also, cool it with your thinly veiled insults and derogatory comments, if you have a personal issue with me then take it to private messages and leave this thread to continue a normal discussion.
Also, object to form.


I want to thank monkeypaw for his post, they provided an interesting observation to a problem of this proposal:

Off the top of my head I can think of at least three appeals to my bans that I either reversed or reduced after going back and realizing that I was missing important context or had simply massively fucked up.

All appeals, particularly successful ones, provide a valuable opportunity for admins to outline and explain their investigative process. When admins take full, public responsibility for their own bans and take seriously the important job of justifying their actions in detail, mistakes quickly become self-evident.

Public, personal accountability is critical to maintaining trust with the community. Involving unrelated admins in the appeal process will only fuel accusations of cronyism and back-scratching. And rightfully so.

I believe this to be a valid point, and it would not necessitate any malice on the administrators behalf, just the perception of being denied an appeal that you thought was right, will easily lead you to level these accusations. And to disprove them is one thing, to make people stop believing them is a wholly other.

Do the people agree this to be a valid problem as well?


This would be all for now. A great many points have been made, I am happy to let this discussion continue longer and I am thankful for all the people willing to give this a fair thought and giving their piece to this thread, so we can evaluate what merit the idea has, and what it has not.


With warm regards
-BONERMASTER

[sinfulbliss]

Public, personal accountability is critical to maintaining trust with the community. Involving unrelated admins in the appeal process will only fuel accusations of cronyism and back-scratching. And rightfully so.

Do the people agree this to be a valid problem as well?

That's the biggest problem I think. Admins overruling other admins is much different than headmins overruling admins. For one, headmins don't feel any pressure to side with the admin in the appeal because it's their unique responsibility to ensure there is no misconduct in the appeals. Under this system, that responsibility would be delegated to every admin, essentially. Not only is this out of the scope of the role of admins as they exist currently, but if it was introduced it would result in a very strong incentive for admins to side with their peers over the appealer. Any bias the admin handling the appeal feels currently would also be held by the 3rd party admin handling the appeal, perhaps to an even greater degree since there is now an incentive not to rock the boat and overrule your peers.

One could even see the admin becoming indignant that their fellow admin didn't see eye-to-eye. Who are they to overrule them? That would be a valid concern and this is why I think the responsibility is best kept with headmins. That said I would mention again that under this view, headmins/the host handling appeals directly might be a concern, since if they are overruled it must be by all of their peers, which is a significantly more difficult task regardless of the merit of the appeal.

[NecromancerAnne]

I'd prefer a responsible administrator handle it than an irresponsible one

Anyone irresponsible shouldn't be an admin, let's be entirely fair.

[Omega_DarkPotato]

If you trust anyone in the admin system, then you shouldn't have a problem trusting another admin to take a fair look at your case, no?

I don't have a problem trusting another admin, which is why I wouldn't really question if another admin chimed in with logs to any complaint or appeal I would make. The difference here is that the banning admin is also the one who actually *saw* everything, so unless the argument is that you can make more sense of a situation by not being there, I don't see why there should be another admin taking over.

If you want to argue for more use of the logs/straight up posting logs proving x did y in ban appeals I'd agree with that, but I don't think there's been any accountability issues or out-right lying that would prompt a change from the current, sensible system of ban appeals.

[Gigapuddi420]

If you trust anyone in the admin system, then you shouldn't have a problem trusting another admin to take a fair look at your case, no?

funny story, but other admins already can look at your case and provide evidence. This has happened both for and against appeals in the past. Sure, the banning admin decides whether or not to overturn their decision but they aren't the final say. The existing system already has the opportunity for another admin to overturn their ban.

Reading a little more into this, it looks like you're not even proposing another system yourself, just a loose set of ideas while asking the community at large to fill in the blanks. I'm not seeing much in the way of substance just allusions to how much better it would be to increase everyone's work load for the sake of better accountability. To which I'd say the existing system is a good compromise between keeping admins accountable for their own actions while keeping things fairly simple and unobtrusive.

You've not given me a solid foundation to work on so I'll assume you mean one of two things: either a dedicated admin position (similar to that of trainer) with the additional duty to handle appeals or simple requiring another admin, any other admin (ideally not involved with the ban) to handle the appeal in place of the banning admin.

Two new issues we don't currently have come from both of these: dedicated "appeal" admins would add another rank in the admin hierarchy above regular admin while allowing any old admin to handle the appeal could encourage cronyism. After-all, we can't trust admins to look after their own bans as they could be lying about it, so we'll trust people in the same team who are their friends to not do the same to protect their working relationship. Most of the accountability already comes from handling the appeal out in the open anyway so we're just adding extra steps.

On that subject. Extra fucking steps:

As is, you get banned, feel the ban is wrong (or just too harsh) come to the forum and try to convince the admin to overturn it or at least reduce it. Most appeals are pretty simple and amount to the player admitting fault but hoping they can play again earlier, there is no reason for another admin to be involved in that short of the banning admin taking a week or more to respond. Now, if there is some actual contention over the facts that's where the player starts expressing why their ban is unfair and makes their case, again it's preferable the two can hash it out and come to a conclusion or compromise they both accept, if that fails there is always the option for a headmin to overturn. Throughout the process players and admins alike can present evidence using logs or accounts (if directly involved in the ban). Dorsi explained the process in a much more concise manner.

Changing the system to require another admins means adding another step. Now you need two admins: firstly the admin overseeing the appeal, secondly the banning admin to provide their account. I suppose you could just consider the banning admin's opinion as purely optional, but that will miss a good chunk of the decision and logs won't always cover everything. It also means a simple appeal where the banning admin and player quickly compromise is less likely as every appeal would need a more thorough investigation to understand a ban. The banning admin can quickly remember what they did and just let the guy off with a warning but a separate admin will have to do a thorough job so they don't end up stepping on another admins toes over a casual unban.

Dealing with bans should be a simple process and if it does come down to debating the validity of a ban it currently happens out in the open and already has another admin (headmins) to oversee the process. You could further complicate the system for the sake of additional accountability, but I question how much merit the additional work would provide. God damn provide some substance instead of bitching about peoples tone.

[MrStonedOne]

Yes they know the most about the situation.

But that is only because the administrators designed the system to be that way. If we had public logs and notes/bans everyone could do it.

https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/

[CPTANT]

I would at least like the option to appeal to headmins directly. Nothing feels so shit as making a ban appeal and the banning admin is just convinced of himself being right despite all the evidence supplied pointing otherwise.

In-thread requests for headmin review are almost always honored.

Threads are locked if the banning admin just denies the appeal flat out.

Also this is old but it was specifically denied when I asked about it:

Re: [COIAX] CPTANT - note appeal, asimov killing non human f

Sent: Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:01 am
From: Arianya
To: CPTANT
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.

[technokek]

[WineAllWine]

Off the top of my head I can think of at least three appeals to my bans that I either reversed or reduced after going back and realizing that I was missing important context or had simply massively fucked up.

All appeals, particularly successful ones, provide a valuable opportunity for admins to outline and explain their investigative process. When admins take full, public responsibility for their own bans and take seriously the important job of justifying their actions in detail, mistakes quickly become self-evident.

Public, personal accountability is critical to maintaining trust with the community. Involving unrelated admins in the appeal process will only fuel accusations of cronyism and back-scratching. And rightfully so.

this is the best take. Phuzzy's responses to ban appeals are almost always detailed, thought out and transparent, It is the level I try to emulate myself but I'm not there yet.

I think the only problem with the current system is the long time it can take the headmins to respond. I'm not blaming them at all, but it might be a symptom that we need a different system. Maybe something like a GM+ can intervene to unban someone in the meantime before the headmins look at it? So the appeals process would have 3 layers rather than the current 2.

[capn_monkeypaw]

Yes they know the most about the situation.

But that is only because the administrators designed the system to be that way. If we had public logs and notes/bans everyone could do it.

https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/

The are not the raw logs so I don't know what you want?

Please correct me if I'm wrong (terminal brain worms, apologies) but as far as I remember the only difference between parsed logs and raw logs is that parsed have the following items redacted:

1. PII aka IP Addresses & CIDs
2. ADMINPRIVATE aka ahelps
3. ASAY aka admin chat

Number 1 is only useful to doxxing jerks and admins hunting down evaders, so it's a non-issue.

As for number 2, players can now access their own ahelps and make them public on statbus, thanks to atlantaned. (Thanks Ned.)

And while I appreciate that number 3 might appear to some to be the spessman equivalent of the proverbial dark, smoke-filled room, it's really just a place for admins to ask each other questions, confer about the issues at hand and bullshit about their real lives. I don't think it's unreasonable to provide admins with a private space in which they can speak candidly to one another in this manner. If you're concerned about malfeasance, I would remind you that ASAY is retained in raw logs and is routinely reviewed by headmins and other admins in response to appeals.

Lacking access to raw logs is not an impediment to a successful appeal, really and truly.

In the end you're not missing much.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Also as an addenendum to #3, since this is about "same admin who banned me" worries, you can always just ask a random admin "Hey theres a big block of censored asay during the period where i was ahelping can you see whether that was admins talking about my ticket?". They (possible i cant remember asay etiquette) can't tell you what was actually said but it's not like the mere topics of asay are the Deep Vaults like adminbus

[BONERMASTER]

I believe, an issue can be raised to our log transparency. At this time, it is not readily known which tools and websites are available to find all the information that you might need for your appeal, but this can be easily fixed by providing a section in the appeal guidelines that details all the current options available to do so. That being said, that discussion is outside of the scope of this thread.


With warm regards
-BONERMASTER

[Omega_DarkPotato]

I believe, an issue can be raised to our log transparency. At this time, it is not readily known which tools and websites are available to find all the information that you might need for your appeal, but this can be easily fixed by providing a section in the appeal guidelines that details all the current options available to do so. That being said, that discussion is outside of the scope of this thread.


With warm regards
-BONERMASTER

fyi you can literally google "tgstation logs" and the first result is our logging website lol

[Thunder11]

Yes they know the most about the situation.

But that is only because the administrators designed the system to be that way. If we had public logs and notes/bans everyone could do it.

https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/

The are not the raw logs so I don't know what you want?

ASAY aka admin chat

This also has to be hidden as an extension of points 1 and 2, because both of those will at some point be talked about in ASAY.

[BONERMASTER]

fyi you can literally google "tgstation logs" and the first result is our logging website lol

Before making my post, I had already considered this, and I came to the conclusion that without a doctor's degree or an addiction to coding, it is unreasonable to expect a new user that may be doing their first appeal to successfully navigate through the menus and find the correct log file AND also extract any meaningful information out of it. There are other log processing sites available (such as scrubby) that present easily accessible information to the user and offer them various filtering methods to further assist them in their search, however, they are not given exposure in any of the guideline threads that you would expect a newly arriving user to look to when they may be preparing their appeal.

Further, this discussion topic is not the focus of this thread, and after already having warned you for your condescending provocations and virtually no positive contribution to this discussion, I do want to express it very clearly that I do not want you to participate in this thread any longer.


With warm regards
-BONERMASTER

[CPTANT]

Can we just codify that people may have an headmin ruling on their ban appeal if they request so?

edit: appeal, not request

[Pandarsenic]

Isn't that literally standard at this point? I thought headmins review all rejected appeals (and accepted-but-only-softened appeals if the accused is still dissatisfied).

[Mothblocks]

Isn't that literally standard at this point? I thought headmins review all rejected appeals (and accepted-but-only-softened appeals if the accused is still dissatisfied).

Not necessarily, non-headmins are free to move rejected appeals after a few days of resolution.

Can we just codify that people may have an headmin ruling on their ban request if they request so?

This is already how it works (assuming you mean ban appeals, not requests). Someone requested headmin appeal on one of my ban appeals after I presented the option, so I left it up and pinged head admins every so often to look at it.

[CPTANT]

Isn't that literally standard at this point? I thought headmins review all rejected appeals (and accepted-but-only-softened appeals if the accused is still dissatisfied).

Not necessarily, non-headmins are free to move rejected appeals after a few days of resolution.

Can we just codify that people may have an headmin ruling on their ban request if they request so?

This is already how it works (assuming you mean ban appeals, not requests). Someone requested headmin appeal on one of my ban appeals after I presented the option, so I left it up and pinged head admins every so often to look at it.

If it is already the case you can just write it down right?

[Jimmius]

Isn't that literally standard at this point? I thought headmins review all rejected appeals (and accepted-but-only-softened appeals if the accused is still dissatisfied).

The way it works (or has worked for this term) is that if the person appealing requests a headmin review, or the appeal is a controversial or serious one that warrants a headmin ruling despite it not being requested, that's when all three of us have to sit down and discuss it.
For appeals that are denied and the person appealing makes no further comment after a few days to a week, I (or another headmin, I suppose) read it and resolve it, notifying the others so they can intervene if they both disagree with how it was resolved.