What information should not be disclosed in public bans?

[wesoda25]

The one that prompted me to make this was alt accounts. Our current SOP for alts is banning the old ones and telling people to stick to one account. Now that permabans are public, this means that connections between public accounts are being made publicly available. I don’t think this is right unless the person in question is fine with it.

Thoughts on this? What other stuff should be kept private?

[Mothblocks]

Anything voluntarily provided should, unless useful for other servers (such as someone transferring to a new alt, then being linked to a ban evader), not be provided.

Everything else is fair game. In order for public bans to be useful, we must provide as much context as possible for other servers.

[Timberpoes]

Information that should never be disclosed in public bans are of a sensitive, confidential or distinctly private-facing nature. I would never reveal a player's CID or IP address in any ban reason. I would never specify sibling/relationship status (players will sometimes reveal this to us as part of investigating multiple connections from the same IP at once). Anything else of a doxy nature derived from that is also taboo. I can geolocate IP addresses to try and identify evaders, tie metacommers together, etc. but that should never be revealed in a ban note. You get the idea.

I don't think ckeys fall into that. I don't think they need to be kept private in cases of someone deciding for whatever reason that they want to change accounts. They definitely shouldn't be kept private in instances of admins having to ask players about alt accounts. I don't consider which ckeys are linked to which accounts particularly sensitive or privileged information as a whole.

If a player doesn't want to be linked to another account, they have a solution: Don't use multiple accounts on tg. This is definitely something that rule 0 precedents seek to discourage via the alt ban clause.

I mainly speak from the context that information on known alts is incredibly useful to other servers and we regularly utilise alt information of other servers that publish on CentCom when we're tracking down ban evaders and their ilk too. It's nice to feed back into those systems and share that kind of information.

[iain0]

Did we ever intend to provide a player with a way to start an externally apparent clean slate? Otherwise that's just creative use of account transfer mechanics.

[Mothblocks]

There's no "externally apparent clean slate" if you're referring to public bans--only perma bans are public.

[iain0]

Clean slate is a cumbersome phrase ; but that is effectively all this changes, a connection between two ckeys can be made that otherwise couldn't, that disconnects whatever the associated or accumulated situation with one ckey is, whatever that means to a specific audience / individual.
(oh right, the slate is the audiences personal slates, not our slate, we always saw the connections and dont give away anything else. sorry, it's clearer in my head than in words )

[Mothblocks]

Yeah, our slate isn't cleared--every time I've done this change I've manually ported over all prior notes to the new account.

[Domitius]

Everything should be kept private except for ckey and that it's a permaban. Players should be at liberty to release their own information as it always should have been.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Everything should be kept private except for ckey and that it's a permaban. Players should be at liberty to release their own information as it always should have been.

I challenge this and say the banning admin should be allowed one word to describe the ban publically IMO.

12/5/22 - jodiefawks - permanent - Griefing
13/5/22 - metafawks - permanent - Evading
13/5/22 - bigdickclownracism - permanent - Bigotry
13/5/22 - johnegspert - permanent - Harassment
13/5/22 - argueingjoe - permanent - Nuisance

[wesoda25]

I don't think ckeys fall into that. I don't think they need to be kept private in cases of someone deciding for whatever reason that they want to change accounts. They definitely shouldn't be kept private in instances of admins having to ask players about alt accounts. I don't consider which ckeys are linked to which accounts particularly sensitive or privileged information as a whole.

If a player doesn't want to be linked to another account, they have a solution: Don't use multiple accounts on tg. This is definitely something that rule 0 precedents seek to discourage via the alt ban clause.

I can think of numerous examples of situations where someone might have good reason to want to keep their accounts private. First that comes to mind is someone who uses different accounts on different servers - they could very easily accidentally connect to tg with the wrong one and have their alt account be publicly flagged. In general though it seems arrogant to me to assume that others do not care or need to care about keeping certain information private. In communities such as SS13 (and the internet in general) privacy is imperative in protecting yourself, I personally would be very upset if admins publicized information that I would rather be kept private. People's wishes and desires should come first, I can barely give a fuck about other servers when privacy is what's at stake.

I wouldn't mind either if we gave players just the flat choice of whether or not to make their permaban public, with the exception of griefers and evaders. Still I'm not too passionate about this, in a way by playing on the server you are "putting up" and I'm not sure if there being consequences for what you put up is inherently a bad thing. There are definitely sensitive bans though that I would have rather seen be kept private.

[Mothblocks]

Can you point to other examples of bans with sensitive information, aside from the book keeping kind where we ban alt accounts?

[Cobby]

you can avoid not having anything revealed by simply not doing something that cops you a permanent ban.

Unless you "accidentally" do something we have zero tolerance over like rape/dox/etc or the ban is flat out wrong (neither of which are frequent and to accidentally do something of this caliber is pretty outlandish anyways) this is the result of your own making.

If a community takes notice you get perma'd here and then notices you are using a completely different name and chooses to mirror the ban (worst case), that is also your doing. The alternative is theyre not public-facing so you're lulled into a false sense of security, the other guys ask about you to an admin with a chip on their shoulder, and they get told a story you cannot look at and certainly not contest in any form because you dont know it happened. Then they watch you like a hawk so every mistake is a "oh hes just trying to subtly grief here".

I'm not saying name and shame, but this is a tool to prevent bad-faith individuals shitting up other servers, including on our own. It is that community's decision on how they use our data, and I think providing them with that gives them the ability to make a fair assessment in the same way we do when utilizing outside bans be it through not-so-public channels or the ban DB. If they "misuse" that data (which is pretty low I think compared to the more damning CID/IP which they could also release) then that's on them, and we have no control over that. I dont think that hsould impact how we release that data though.

Part of me believes some people think SS13 bans being public-facing are synonymous with something absurd like prison records (which FYI in the US is also available to access in ways, see background checks) and come with similar consequences. It's like a weird, doomsday take on the "admins are like a real word government" larping. SS13 and its communities are sandboxes, you are not owed and are not negatively impacted if you theoretically could not play on any of them. That said, there are very few individuals who are banned from most established communities and still let permad people play their servers when bans were shared via hushes and whispers and you couldnt defend yourself.

[Domitius]

you can avoid not having anything revealed by simply not doing something that cops you a permanent ban.

Unless you "accidentally" do something we have zero tolerance over like rape/dox/etc or the ban is flat out wrong (neither of which are frequent and to accidentally do something of this caliber is pretty outlandish anyways) this is the result of your own making.

If a community takes notice you get perma'd here and then notices you are using a completely different name and chooses to mirror the ban (worst case), that is also your doing. The alternative is theyre not public-facing so you're lulled into a false sense of security, the other guys ask about you to an admin with a chip on their shoulder, and they get told a story you cannot look at and certainly not contest in any form because you dont know it happened. Then they watch you like a hawk so every mistake is a "oh hes just trying to subtly grief here".

I'm not saying name and shame, but this is a tool to prevent bad-faith individuals shitting up other servers, including on our own. It is that community's decision on how they use our data, and I think providing them with that gives them the ability to make a fair assessment in the same way we do when utilizing outside bans be it through not-so-public channels or the ban DB. If they "misuse" that data (which is pretty low I think compared to the more damning CID/IP which they could also release) then that's on them, and we have no control over that. I dont think that hsould impact how we release that data though.

Part of me believes some people think SS13 bans being public-facing are synonymous with something absurd like prison records (which FYI in the US is also available to access in ways, see background checks) and come with similar consequences. It's like a weird, doomsday take on the "admins are like a real word government" larping. SS13 and its communities are sandboxes, you are not owed and are not negatively impacted if you theoretically could not play on any of them. That said, there are very few individuals who are banned from most established communities yet still let permad people play their servers when bans were shared via hushes and whispers and you couldnt defend yourself.

It's none of our business what they go off and do after somebody gets banned. Anymore time spent working on our public ban system is a waste of effort unless it's to restrict it more.

Using another servers ban also is super dicey as they have their own policies and standards for what makes a ban. The only time it's used is for vouchers(Which we were already handling before the list) and to look up ban evasion(Which was also dealt with pretty easily).

Our public ban list continues to be a monolith of wasted effort.

[Cobby]

I didnt say it was our business what they do, the argument on anti-PB has been fully grounded in what other people do with the information though (people will bully them for it, they will be harassed about it, the person will ss13 account-dox them, etc.). It is none of our business how that data is used (even """maliciously""", which at WORST is picking on someone about a ban), but it could (and has, we even utilize the data) be beneficial to gauge player history without them getting to ruin double-digit amount of rounds before (you) go "yeah maybe they arent cool". Again, you will never run into this issue if you dont get banned on TG in the first place (we cant control if people get banned for stupid stuff outside of here).

Reminder we are NOT suggesting by just putting bans on a more public-facing platform that the user we put up should be banned on other servers (although some probably should), and if that impression is made on a blanket level then I full heartedly agree thats not cool and we should work on having that aspect changed. Thats nuanced from not wanting DB at all

I do care what they did/plan to do here though, and being banned doesnt mean you dont have some level of impact on the community (an example of this is bindy while he was banned for instance, or any member who proceeded to make an "im banned so talk to me here" discord that bled drama into tg). It's important that if someone utilizes the ban from the DB, it is pertinent that 1) the banned user knows its being revealed and can therefore 2) have room to dispute unfair characterizations of the ban from TG. The issue I think is that 1 is implied admin-side when public bans dont exist when in reality the banned individual has no idea that you may be discussing their behavior with other users, and as such that extra layering of the ban reason is not supported by 2. With public bans they know for sure their ban is available and it doesnt need the extra layering an admin will do because you are not asking an admin. ofc this is not foolproof, but part of that is it's on the onus of the player to make sure the ban is detailed enough that there doesnt need to be room for asking and on the admin to make sure that convo isnt needed.

Using it blindly is bad, which is especially true when (at least in our instance) bans pertaining to history have no viewing of history. This is why others (and we) should be particularly detailed when we know a ban is going to be potentially up for display. This is true with a wide variety of data outside of ss13, it doesnt mean there isnt use (which again we know it has use, we use it) which is why I support contributing to it to SOME degree.

Again its not medical records or anything, the WORST that happens is they get lol'd on about being bad on X community for an hour or two then everyone forgets it and moves on. It isnt damning and im genuinely tired of people playing it up to be some sort of classified information in a government agency. The retort is going to be about how people out of our control are going to "misuse" it so just go ahead and assume i empty quote this post and we hit full circle already.

[Cobby]

I will say separately that I do think there needs to be some upfront way of informing players that, if they get perma'd, it goes to the public DB before they play. That way there is no excuse of ignorance and you accept the consequences of that data being released.

Purely for them to make the privacy decision and it keeps us upfront and honest (muh admin morals)

[bobbahbrown]

i would make the suggestion that there's nothing stopping an administrator from asking a player if they are alright with certain information being published if the administrator themselves feels it is questionable, no? if you have concerns, you could always voice it with the player.

Our public ban list continues to be a monolith of wasted effort.

can you elaborate on this for those of us who only see one side of it as to what efforts have been wasted? the way you call it a monolith sounds like it's taking up a lot of peoples' time! is it time wasted in policy discussion, ensuring the bans you place don't have information of concern in them, things like that...?

Using another servers ban also is super dicey as they have their own policies and standards for what makes a ban. The only time it's used is for vouchers(Which we were already handling before the list) and to look up ban evasion(Which was also dealt with pretty easily).

since we are not discussing the policy surrounding our use of public bans, but instead information we publish for others to use, are you suggesting that the information we publish has very few uses, with even those seemingly being easily replaced, within other communities? if so, i would be very curious to ask around and see if this is a common opinion of those consuming our data or not. assuming those downstream consumers to have the same (anti-public-ban) opinion that you hold i can't help but feel is a slippery slope.

i can tell you from the perspective of the person who created a system for curating various public bans that /tg/ was the only community that i heard of having significant concerns over the quality of bans of other communities. i have not heard complaints of ban quality, though i would admit it would be unusual for someone to mention that to me. if anything i have heard from several head coders/admins of various communities that the ability to have a record across servers has been beneficial to 'getting a bigger picture' of a bad actor's intentions; be it griefing, evading, or some other serial behavior. by having our bans be public, we are helping contribute to that 'bigger picture'.

i do not feel it is a waste of time, though you may understandably call me biased as i do have a large amount of effort put into maintaining the contributions between different servers!

merry christmas,
bobbah 'bee' brown

[Fikou]

Everything should be kept private except for ckey and that it's a permaban. Players should be at liberty to release their own information as it always should have been.

no i think we should be useful to other servers

[Misdoubtful]

Everything should be kept private except for ckey and that it's a permaban. Players should be at liberty to release their own information as it always should have been.

I challenge this and say the banning admin should be allowed one word to describe the ban publically IMO.

12/5/22 - jodiefawks - permanent - Griefing
13/5/22 - metafawks - permanent - Evading
13/5/22 - bigdickclownracism - permanent - Bigotry
13/5/22 - johnegspert - permanent - Harassment
13/5/22 - argueingjoe - permanent - Nuisance

I like this. More people could learn the power of brevity. If the information isn't pertinent to why someone got the permaban that's being disclosed, why would it ever need to be there?

[Mothblocks]

I believe the exact opposite--public permas are only useful to other servers if we plainly detail everything that led up to that ban being a perma. It helps contextualize things for other servers. For example, maybe they wouldn't have banned for what we banned them for, which they wouldn't have known if it was just "griefing". Or, it helps them if our ban is about consistent bad behavior as command, detailing out what that means to us, and then they see it on their servers. I train admins to provide as much useful information as possible on a permaban precisely because they're useless to people who don't have the extensive note history that we and the player have access to.

[Misdoubtful]

That's the definition of pertinent information. Including that their wig is pink is not. Including that they ban evaded seven years as GamerGrill when they were recently permabanned for continually gibbing people as chef is not. No one needs a biography full of junk.

[Domitius]

I believe the exact opposite--public permas are only useful to other servers if we plainly detail everything that led up to that ban being a perma. It helps contextualize things for other servers. For example, maybe they wouldn't have banned for what we banned them for, which they wouldn't have known if it was just "griefing". Or, it helps them if our ban is about consistent bad behavior as command, detailing out what that means to us, and then they see it on their servers. I train admins to provide as much useful information as possible on a permaban precisely because they're useless to people who don't have the extensive note history that we and the player have access to.

I've got nothing against other servers but this should never be the case for why permabans should be so detailed.

They need to be detailed for our records and for the player so they can hopefully understand why they were banned.

I challenge this and say the banning admin should be allowed one word to describe the ban publically IMO.

12/5/22 - jodiefawks - permanent - Griefing
13/5/22 - metafawks - permanent - Evading
13/5/22 - bigdickclownracism - permanent - Bigotry
13/5/22 - johnegspert - permanent - Harassment
13/5/22 - argueingjoe - permanent - Nuisance

If we could have a separate way to show what becomes public facing I would be in full support of this.

no i think we should be useful to other servers

We can be useful to other servers by disclosing information on request by trusted parties.

i would make the suggestion that there's nothing stopping an administrator from asking a player if they are alright with certain information being published if the administrator themselves feels it is questionable, no? if you have concerns, you could always voice it with the player.

Players already have the choice to disclose their own ban, notes, and ticket information at their leisure.

can you elaborate on this for those of us who only see one side of it as to what efforts have been wasted? the way you call it a monolith sounds like it's taking up a lot of peoples' time! is it time wasted in policy discussion, ensuring the bans you place don't have information of concern in them, things like that...?

It's time wasted in policy discussion debating what should or shouldn't be disclosed, it's time wasted in admin channels discussing what is disclosed, it's time wasted in training talking about the public ban db, it was time wasted in setting it up as there hasn't been any cases to my knowledge where the public permabans have provided any benefit.

since we are not discussing the policy surrounding our use of public bans, but instead information we publish for others to use, are you suggesting that the information we publish has very few uses, with even those seemingly being easily replaced, within other communities? if so, i would be very curious to ask around and see if this is a common opinion of those consuming our data or not. assuming those downstream consumers to have the same (anti-public-ban) opinion that you hold i can't help but feel is a slippery slope.

I am saying the information we publish has next to useless amounts of information as they only further confirm prior suspicions.

i can tell you from the perspective of the person who created a system for curating various public bans that /tg/ was the only community that i heard of having significant concerns over the quality of bans of other communities. i have not heard complaints of ban quality, though i would admit it would be unusual for someone to mention that to me. if anything i have heard from several head coders/admins of various communities that the ability to have a record across servers has been beneficial to 'getting a bigger picture' of a bad actor's intentions; be it griefing, evading, or some other serial behavior. by having our bans be public, we are helping contribute to that 'bigger picture'.

I'm sure having that bigger picture is a lovely ideal but all I've seen are a couple peanut threads, a ban evasion glory list, and a surplus amount of useless information being shared. Everybody fucks up when learning this game. If somebody wishes for a fresh start on another server they need to be given that chance.

i do not feel it is a waste of time, though you may understandably call me biased as i do have a large amount of effort put into maintaining the contributions between different servers!

merry christmas,
bobbah 'bee' brown

As always everybody is free to use the current public information as they wish.

Merry christmas as well bud.

[sinfulbliss]

I don't think rule 8 permabans should be public, or if they are, then the ban reason should include as little information as possible. The level of embarrassment it may cause to the player serves as a punishment perhaps worse than the ban itself, to the point where it's actually not even worth it to appeal. Players would sooner find a new server rather than humiliating themselves in an appeals thread by publicizing what are probably horribly embarrassing logs. You might say, "well then they shouldn't break the rule," but consider that permabans at least have the potential to be unjustified. This aspect of shame is far more pertinent to rule 8 than to any other rule.

The real issue is in the fact the appeal would be public too, but that's not really within the scope of the topic. Anyway, in nearly every other situation, detailed ban reasons seem good. It's nice for players to know A) why someone they may have had fun playing with is now no longer allowed to play with them, and B) what sort of things get people permabanned. The rules tell you this, but it is incredibly useful nonetheless, IMO.

[Mothblocks]

I think the concern is valid but that it's not an issue at the end of the day--I just lifted two rule 8 bans today, and people have seemingly had no issue appealing them in the past (including appeals on private bans, such as the one "Cum Town" one)

[oranges]

The fact that any remaining admins against public bans are boomers says everything you need to know.

we have a duty to the rest of the ss13 community to publish our bans.

[cacogen]

I challenge this and say the banning admin should be allowed one word to describe the ban publically IMO.

12/5/22 - jodiefawks - permanent - Griefing
13/5/22 - metafawks - permanent - Evading
13/5/22 - bigdickclownracism - permanent - Bigotry
13/5/22 - johnegspert - permanent - Harassment
13/5/22 - argueingjoe - permanent - Nuisance

I guess I like this but as I think Mothblocks said earlier in the thread it defeats the purpose if the admins of the other servers don't know the details of the ban. It would be better if admins on other servers had access to the in-depth information and the peanut gallery gets either this or nothing.

I think the concern is valid but that it's not an issue at the end of the day--I just lifted two rule 8 bans today, and people have seemingly had no issue appealing them in the past (including appeals on private bans, such as the one "Cum Town" one)

If you're given a ban you think is unfair and an overreaction, assuming you don't want to wait it out or have that note on your record, you don't have much choice but to appeal it. That doesn't mean we should publicise bans anymore than they need to be. It just creates needless drama.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I challenge this and say the banning admin should be allowed one word to describe the ban publically IMO.

12/5/22 - jodiefawks - permanent - Griefing
13/5/22 - metafawks - permanent - Evading
13/5/22 - bigdickclownracism - permanent - Bigotry
13/5/22 - johnegspert - permanent - Harassment
13/5/22 - argueingjoe - permanent - Nuisance

I guess I like this but as I think Mothblocks said earlier in the thread it defeats the purpose if the admins of the other servers don't know the details of the ban. It would be better if admins on other servers had access to the in-depth information and the peanut gallery gets either this or nothing.

I didn't care about other servers the first 10 times we considered public bans and decided against them and I still don't now that we have 'em. If an admin on penis-station 24 needs the full glutinous deets on a complicated situation they can come bother us for it, or they can take the snap judgement of the summary. It's not like ban reasons are fully-contextual and detailed at the moment anyway, as the endless trickle of "appealing my ban reason because the admin didnt include detail #2349 in it this is clearly a conspiracy to make me look bad they're paper-trailing me!!" appeals has shown

[Armhulen]

snip

I didn't care about other servers the first 10 times we considered public bans and decided against them and I still don't now that we have 'em.

Considering other servers share important information about griefers, exploits, and other early warnings so other servers don't have to learn of something bad the hard way, this is a terrible mentality

If an admin on penis-station 24 needs the full glutinous deets on a complicated situation they can come bother us for it, or they can take the snap judgement of the summary.

option B. just makes that server's administration terrible, so i hope nobody's doing that. but if they have to come to us for the ACTUAL ban reasons, not only is this a completely unneeded amount of extra work for whomever handles the questions, but it shows only the person who made the ban (someone who could just up and disappear one day) actually has good knowledge of the situation. that's awful

It's not like ban reasons are fully-contextual and detailed at the moment anyway, as the endless trickle of "appealing my ban reason because the admin didnt include detail #2349 in it this is clearly a conspiracy to make me look bad they're paper-trailing me!!" appeals has shown

These shake out in two ways. Either the reason was descriptive enough and it stays, or it's actually editted. You should consider that any ban reason edits are genuinely the banning admin's fault, for not accurately and properly writing out the ban reason. I don't know why you think a bad thing (admins not describing bans) somehow justifies us to keep doing it. There is zero advantage to poorly described bans, even if you're a selfish asshole who doesn't want to support the greater SS13 community

[cacogen]

It would be better if admins on other servers had access to the in-depth information and the peanut gallery gets either this or nothing.

Considering other servers share important information about griefers, exploits, and other early warnings so other servers don't have to learn of something bad the hard way, this is a terrible mentality

What?

[Domitius]

*snip*

There is zero advantage to poorly described bans, even if you're a selfish asshole who doesn't want to support the greater SS13 community

You keep going on that public bans are to support the greater community. Can you please describe how it supports the community and any anecdotes on when it has actually done anything?

[SkeletalElite]

*snip*

There is zero advantage to poorly described bans, even if you're a selfish asshole who doesn't want to support the greater SS13 community

You keep going on that public bans are to support the greater community. Can you please describe how it supports the community and any anecdotes on when it has actually done anything?

Our own admins regularly cite bad behavior on other servers' public ban systems when considering appeals. Especially bee's.

[Armhulen]

It would be better if admins on other servers had access to the in-depth information and the peanut gallery gets either this or nothing.

Considering other servers share important information about griefers, exploits, and other early warnings so other servers don't have to learn of something bad the hard way, this is a terrible mentality

What?

Other servers share important information about griefers, exploits, and other early warnings

[Armhulen]

*snip*

There is zero advantage to poorly described bans, even if you're a selfish asshole who doesn't want to support the greater SS13 community

You keep going on that public bans are to support the greater community. Can you please describe how it supports the community and any anecdotes on when it has actually done anything?

Sure, the gupta appeal turned what would be a "hey seems good free unban" into a more serious look into what's going on because of this:





It's also been useful for other bans where we look around and someones entire recent history was getting banned from every server in existence before coming back, turning a "hey why not" into a "well, what would go differently here". In the gupta appeal the actual reason behind the ban was very relevant. So if we found this fulp ban useful for ascertaining whether gupta should be unbanned as a real talking point, we can infer that us also offering public bans is the same benefit to them as theirs is to us.

[cacogen]

It would be better if admins on other servers had access to the in-depth information and the peanut gallery gets either this or nothing.

Considering other servers share important information about griefers, exploits, and other early warnings so other servers don't have to learn of something bad the hard way, this is a terrible mentality

What?

Other servers share important information about griefers, exploits, and other early warnings

But where in that post that you snipped when you originally quoted it did I disagree with that being a good idea?

[Armhulen]

I think we agree caco you just need to respond with "What?" less or else I think you aren't on the same page

[cacogen]

But this is what you posted originally:

snip

I didn't care about other servers the first 10 times we considered public bans and decided against them and I still don't now that we have 'em.

Considering other servers share important information about griefers, exploits, and other early warnings so other servers don't have to learn of something bad the hard way, this is a terrible mentality

And this is the post that you "snipped":

I guess I like this but as I think Mothblocks said earlier in the thread it defeats the purpose if the admins of the other servers don't know the details of the ban. It would be better if admins on other servers had access to the in-depth information and the peanut gallery gets either this or nothing.

Considering in another thread you deliberately misquoted what I was saying to misrepresent the meaning of my post and derailed the entire thread, I'm left to wonder why you redacted such a short post and then decried it as a "terrible mentality" to not let admins from other servers have access to in-depth information on bans when all we disagree on is whether or not the bans should be publicised. Did you just not read the post? Or is it the usual underhanded nonsense that we have to sift through?

[Armhulen]

oh i was only replying to dorsi i just wanted to snip his reply to you so my post wasn't too long

[Cobby]

What’s in-depth about a ban reason and why is it in-depth without sounding like you’re government rping

[Armhulen]

What’s in-depth about a ban reason and why is it in-depth without sounding like you’re government rping

Honestly I just want bans to have their incidents described well so it isn't only the banning admin who actually knows what happened:

Example of a bad ban reason: Unfair kill, 1 day.
Example of a good ban reason: Started escalation with a chef by breaking into their kitchen and stealing items, when they were kicked out they then proceeded to come back and kill the chef.

Basically we should be doing this for ourselves and the public part is "other servers do this and help us so why wouldn't we do the same for them." Whether we actually decide on more public bans or not we should be properly explaining what happened imo

[Farquaar]

I agree with Armhulen here.

[wesoda25]

Can you point to other examples of bans with sensitive information, aside from the book keeping kind where we ban alt accounts?

Off the top I would say requested bans and certain rule 8 bans. Like, the "good faith" ones where people just struggle to find the line, not those who intentionally step past it to make others uncomfortable. Also maybe certain rule 0 bans?

[Armhulen]

Can you point to other examples of bans with sensitive information, aside from the book keeping kind where we ban alt accounts?

Off the top I would say requested bans and certain rule 8 bans. Like, the "good faith" ones where people just struggle to find the line, not those who intentionally step past it to make others uncomfortable. Also maybe certain rule 0 bans?

Requested bans?

[Not-Dorsidarf]

What’s in-depth about a ban reason and why is it in-depth without sounding like you’re government rping

Honestly I just want bans to have their incidents described well so it isn't only the banning admin who actually knows what happened:

Example of a bad ban reason: Unfair kill, 1 day.
Example of a good ban reason: Started escalation with a chef by breaking into their kitchen and stealing items, when they were kicked out they then proceeded to come back and kill the chef.

The problem arises in that your "good ban reason" is detailed enough to look like it's the whole story and be accepted at face value as such. Even though it might just as well be a casual summary of an extremely vague and complicated situation that the admin isn't really representing well.

That's why I think you only ought to get what is clearly a summary so people dont assume they have the whole storey because Joey G 'Min didnt want to write the entire situation's nuance out in prose and missed a key element or something. If the snooper/other server admin needs more information on the ban, they can come ask for it, instead of taking someone else's "good enough for government work hes getting banned I dont need to be the most accurate person ever" take on the situation.

I suppose demanding all admins exhaustively document the situation in the public ban reason is also an option, but it seems a lot less fair on said admins who just wanna get Punchy Shitflips onto the time-out bench and dont care if its gonna be used as evidence in his Final Review over on Cockstation 13 6 months down the line.

[Mothblocks]

but it seems a lot less fair on said admins who just wanna get Punchy Shitflips onto the time-out bench

Admins should not be making permanent bans frivolously. From what I've seen, admins already do more than their due diligence on making sure someone deserves a perma ban. Having them write a clearly detailed note is something that has always effectively been a requirement for anything more complicated than "ban evasion of so and so".

[Not-Dorsidarf]

but it seems a lot less fair on said admins who just wanna get Punchy Shitflips onto the time-out bench

Admins should not be making permanent bans frivolously. From what I've seen, admins already do more than their due diligence on making sure someone deserves a perma ban. Having them write a clearly detailed note is something that has always effectively been a requirement for anything more complicated than "ban evasion of so and so".

Again, given the notes that keep being having to be appealed on the basis that their content is misleading or inaccurate or makes the person involved look far worse than actual context would be, I'd dispute this idealistic statement. Admins do their best to write good ban reasons, but that's not the same as "Any note that isnt perfect is frivolity and because our admins arent frivolous it doesnt happen"

[wesoda25]

Can you point to other examples of bans with sensitive information, aside from the book keeping kind where we ban alt accounts?

Off the top I would say requested bans and certain rule 8 bans. Like, the "good faith" ones where people just struggle to find the line, not those who intentionally step past it to make others uncomfortable. Also maybe certain rule 0 bans?

Requested bans?

“Admin i am burnt out can you ban me”

[Armhulen]

Can you point to other examples of bans with sensitive information, aside from the book keeping kind where we ban alt accounts?

Off the top I would say requested bans and certain rule 8 bans. Like, the "good faith" ones where people just struggle to find the line, not those who intentionally step past it to make others uncomfortable. Also maybe certain rule 0 bans?

Requested bans?

“Admin i am burnt out can you ban me”

Yeah, but what's so sensitive about that?

[wesoda25]

Maybe sensitive isn't the word but I don't see why we wouldn't offer people the chance to make them private.

[Armhulen]

Maybe sensitive isn't the word but I don't see why we wouldn't offer people the chance to make them private.

I don't see why anyone should care but sure. I mean other servers obviously won't look at a requested ban and infer anything bad behavior wise

[Cobby]

What’s in-depth about a ban reason and why is it in-depth without sounding like you’re government rping

Honestly I just want bans to have their incidents described well so it isn't only the banning admin who actually knows what happened:

Example of a bad ban reason: Unfair kill, 1 day.
Example of a good ban reason: Started escalation with a chef by breaking into their kitchen and stealing items, when they were kicked out they then proceeded to come back and kill the chef.

Basically we should be doing this for ourselves and the public part is "other servers do this and help us so why wouldn't we do the same for them." Whether we actually decide on more public bans or not we should be properly explaining what happened imo

Sorry I meant in-depth like it was being used above the previous post (that is central to the individual similar to one suggesting releasing medical records) and less so in-depth as in the ban is detailed, which I’m for regardless of pubbans or not.

[NamelessFairy]

Players requesting to move to a different account may have their new ckey not included in the ban text at their request. Important information that is not included in a permanent ban should be included in a note for admin reference.

Headmin Votes:
NamelessFairy: Agree
Dragomagol: Agree
RaveRadbury: Agree