The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Locked
User avatar
san7890
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:12 pm
Byond Username: San7890
Github Username: san7890
Location: here
Contact:

The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by san7890 » #655352

For some reason, people have been beating the drum on this for the last few days. I don't know what suddenly caused this mass consciousness shift since I hadn't heard any complaints for over the last few years, but everyone's going a bit bug-eyed over the whole "player-who-wasn't-involved-in-the-incident submitting a post telling the ban appellate to request headmin review" post. Ever since I became an admin, it was always assumed/presumed that the player would either petition for review or concede with the admin's point and eat the note/ban/whatever had occurred. Ever since I became a Trial Admin in early December of 2021, that was the system as far as I understood it.

Now, people are automatically defaulting to "OH HEADMINS SHOULD KNOW THAT EVERY APPEAL NEEDS A REVIEW" or maybe something more toned down than like "A Headmin should know when to intercede in an appeal..." This is a confusing though process for me, and I just want to field more opinion on this.

I'm going to leave my personal opinion in this spoiler. If you think that my opinion will somehow sway yours in some extreme manner, make your post and then crack this open. If you want to dispute my opinion, then please do so.
► Show Spoiler
Anyways, what are your perceptions on this issue? How do you want the appeals that unfurl in front of you (or maybe even your own eventual appeal) to play out in regard to appealing to the higher authority? Keep in mind that expectations set here might remain for the rest of the term (if any are picked) or could persist much long into the future (as long as future terms want to keep it up for).
Simultaneously making both the best and worst jokes on the internet. I like looking at maps and code. Learn how to map today!. You may rate me here.
User avatar
Agux909
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:26 pm
Byond Username: Agux909
Location: My own head

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Agux909 » #655355

I personally don't think headmins should automatically go and review every single ban appeal. You have a full admin team for a reason. But I also think it's dumb to delete posts from uninvolved parties reminding the appealer about the headmin review when the banning admin hasn't explicitly mentioned it themselves on the thread yet. That the appealer can ask for headmin review is a standard procedure from the appealing process, thus, a post giving this information fullfills the requirements needed for it to be abiding peanut policy. If people with forum privileges get annoyed at these posts that's their problem, they shouldn't be deleting them.
Image

Image

Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Pandarsenic » #655356

Asking headmins to proactively investigate every appealed bans - and thus the huge stack of logs - would mean that absolutely fucking nothing else gets done.

My take:
- People who want headmin reviews should ask for them to happen
- If there's an obvious impasse the admin themselves should say "this is my stance and if you disagree you can request headmin review" themselves
- If the above doesn't happen, it should not be considered Peanut for other players to inform the appellant of this option, especially as that is basically the only real input they have on rules & enforcement of policy
- The admins should be able to proactively request a headmin consult without the fear of having their ban taken out of their hands, as has recently happened

Alternatively or additionally, reviews can be opened up to gamemasters in good standing, either to handle the review or to at least check the request for basic merit before kicking it up to the current term's headmins. But that seems like a very swingy system depending on the interest levels of those gamemasters.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
TheSmallBlue
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:55 pm
Byond Username: SmallBlue

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by TheSmallBlue » #655367

Headmins shouldn't automatically review each appeal at all, if so then the point of appealing to the banning admin would be lost.
I do think, however, that it should be policy that the admin who's appeal was targeted towards should at some point remind the person who made the appeal that headmin review is a thing, and that they can always request it.

I think that the people that remind people that they can ask for a headmin review don't do it because they think every admin should review every appeal, but rather remind people who might be appealing for the first time and don't know the process that if they do not agree with what the admin is saying, they can request a headmin review. This could be avoided by what I said above of admins themselves reminding perps.
When human I go by Bluti Kabooti, when AI I go by Azure
Image
Comm from
User avatar
iamgoofball
Github User
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:50 pm
Byond Username: Iamgoofball
Github Username: Iamgoofball

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by iamgoofball » #655373

It's absolutely unacceptable that people are even remotely considering that it's okay for us to silence people informing potentially innocent players of their right to a headmin review of their appeal.

This is bullshit and it's bullshit anyone's even acting on it. It's incredibly obvious this is being spurred by specific problem actors on the admin team upset that their half-cocked improperly investigated bans are getting a second review. You can do the math when you realize these are the same admins who complain about bans being a public matter as well. They don't want their work checked and they'll do what they can to crack down on people checking their work.
TheSmallBlue wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 5:05 am Headmins shouldn't automatically review each appeal at all, if so then the point of appealing to the banning admin would be lost.
The point of appealing to the banning admin is for the banning admin to have a chance to second guess their work and reach the conclusion they should have reached from the logs in the first place. When an admin doubles down, they risk being embarrassed in front of everyone if the headmins review and find that they did not do due diligence in investigating and overturn the case.

Which is good. Bad admins should be publicly embarrassed for their fuckups if they double down on it.

When an admin goes "lol no i'm denying this, appeal to headmins if you want", that's them stating to everyone that they believe their case will stand up to headmin scrutiny. If it doesn't, that's on them.
Last edited by iamgoofball on Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tearling
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:40 pm
Byond Username: Tearling

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Tearling » #655378

I agree with Timberpoes's take on it posted in another thread, that I'll repost here.
Timberpoes wrote:My own experience is that: Unless a player requests headmin review, they will not get a headmin review.
Unfortunately a lot of players have no idea they can request a headmin review, and that's normal. On other servers, and on other games, it's abnormal to have an administration team that isn't plagued with issues of nepotism and has actual admin oversight.
Pandarsenic wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 1:07 am - If there's an obvious impasse the admin themselves should say "this is my stance and if you disagree you can request headmin review" themselves
- If the above doesn't happen, it should not be considered Peanut for other players to inform the appellant of this option, especially as that is basically the only real input they have on rules & enforcement of policy
Expecting the admins to tell the player they can request a headmin review is probably for the best, though I would feel bad if a trialmin got put on blast in a future peanut thread just because they didn't know about this policy.
Image
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:41 am From my perspective, players just want to genuinely be listened to. And I don't mean it condescendingly, but to genuinely have their say and for admins to listen, process it and reply. Even if you don't give two shits about what the player is saying, even if you disagree with every part of what they say, players are less likely to leave an ahelp pissed off if you've listened to them and given a reply that directly addresses what they've told you.
User avatar
Thunder11
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:55 pm
Byond Username: Thunder12345
Github Username: Thunder12345
Location: Scotland, UK

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Thunder11 » #655381

Codifying something in the ban appeal rules thread would be the obvious solution here
ImageImage
Spoiler:
IcePacks wrote:
MrFoster wrote:Back in my day, we didn't complain about lag! We used it to queue attacks!
That's thinking on your feet, soldier!
Quality Paprika from #coderbus wrote:[11:35.52] <paprika> holy crap so yeah i don't care about your opinion at all
oranges wrote:
Excuse me? Thats for sensible and calm rational debate, not for senseless whining.
Resident Catmin, please direct catposting to: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5578
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Timberpoes » #655405

Two main ways I tend to see appeals play out:

During last term, I was reading every appeal. I involved myself in a lot of appeals. I tried to get appeals resolved without having to resort to headmin rulings where possible, through guiding admins and players through the motions of posting logs and figuring out how policy and rules applied. Shepherding them towards useful discussions instead of irrelevant ones.

Alternatively, the more common status quo of headmins that channel their inner neglected child: Headmins are neither to be seen, nor heard. They only speak when spoken to, and otherwise stay quiet and invisible.

The current compromise of "any admin can move an appeal to resolved" basically necessitates "call stopsies on that by taking it out of the admin team's hands and into the headmin team's hands". So to me, there's three options.

One - Headmins are more involved in appeals proactively.
Pros: Headmins reviewing appeals passively. Can make appeals resolve faster, players see a more involved headmin team, headmins already know which appeals need their intervention.
Cons: An active commitment/responsibility. Time-sensitive, cannot be left for later. Often involves a single headmin; incompatible teams may not allow solo headmins to speak in an official capacity without constant voting and bureaucracy.

Two - We allow players to tell other players they can request headmin reviews. Headmin review requests prevent admins moving the appeal to resolved.
Pros: Players get a "don't trashcan this appeal" button. Admins can still move appeals where no headmin request is made.
Cons: The players need to be motivated enough to go full Karen. The player needs to know when going full Karen is appropriate. Some appeals that should really be reviewed by the headmins (usually where a player gives up arguing with a stubborn admin and abandons the appeal out of exasperation and frustration) can get missed. Headmins wasting shit tons of time re-investigating appeals.

Three - We disallow admins moving rejected appeals to resolved. This is something only headmins can do instead.
Pros: Mix of above two options. Headmins reviewing appeals passively, but without time-sensitive nature of first option since they don't actively need to be involved during the appeal proper. Only need to spend time in rejected or disputed appeals. More conducive to bureaucratic headmin teams that prefer to limit individual headmin freedom.
Cons: Headmins still have to commitment to review all rejected appeals. Headmins still wasting shit-tons of time re-investigating appeals.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
User avatar
Cobby
Code Maintainer
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Cobby » #655408

If the appeal is denied it should be obvious the person wants headmin review unless they say they accept the punishment, im confused on how any other notion is accepted unless we live in the disillusion every player views the forum with their morning coffee like we do to know they have to specifically ask for it to be moved up despite it being clear they still dont agree with the ruling.

The idea the onus is on the players to inform other players they can do this is equally as silly, maybe I dont understand the nuances of being a headmin but surely just checking once a week to see if any appeals are still open from a week+ ago doesnt seem like a big ask. Oftentimes admins will do this for you via ping like they do with every other FNR related item.

Its not like you have to write up a big post for every rejected appeal. Am I missing something?
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Pandarsenic » #655410

Tearling wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 11:35 am
Pandarsenic wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 1:07 am - If there's an obvious impasse the admin themselves should say "this is my stance and if you disagree you can request headmin review" themselves
- If the above doesn't happen, it should not be considered Peanut for other players to inform the appellant of this option, especially as that is basically the only real input they have on rules & enforcement of policy
Expecting the admins to tell the player they can request a headmin review is probably for the best, though I would feel bad if a trialmin got put on blast in a future peanut thread just because they didn't know about this policy.
It's not that hard to train them for it; Candidates/Trialmins get walked through the important stuff to cover in their first appeal or two generally, and will usually ask for input proactively through the rest. It's also not uncommon to see full admins ask for Second Opinions in the 'bus on pretty average appeals even after that.
Cobby wrote: Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:17 pm If the appeal is denied it should be obvious the person wants headmin review unless they say they accept the punishment ... Its not like you have to write up a big post for every rejected appeal. Am I missing something?
I still think it should be on the admins to say "I've heard everything I think you have to say and this is my stance based on it; you can take it or you can ask for a Headmin review" so that appeals don't float in will-they-won't-they limbo.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
Cobby
Code Maintainer
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Cobby » #655421

Yes the onus should be on the administrator, whether thats the person handling the appeal or the individual who would overturn the appeal. its absurd to put that onus on the player especially since there is no indication its a requirement to be able to get a second opinion on the issue, and even if it was indicated it would still be a silly ask because again forum regulars vs. some guy just posting to be able to play the game again.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by sinfulbliss » #655429

Here’s the issue right. The vast majority of players who write ban appeals have no fuckin idea they can request a “headmin review” because they’re not serial forumites with hundreds of posts here. In all likelihood they created their account just to make their ban appeal.

Now the admin denies them and, that’s pretty much the end of the story for most of them. Probably half the time they don’t even agree with the admin’s verdict, but the admin denied them in appeal so - what to do other than accept it?

That’s why I think it’s in good taste for the admin to mention to the player they can request headmin review if they clearly see the player disagrees with them still, even after both parties have expressed their viewpoint. If the admin doesn’t do that then players should be able to remind them. I’ve actually PM’d players before when the ban seemed off mentioning they could do this because I knew they didn’t know.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
san7890
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:12 pm
Byond Username: San7890
Github Username: san7890
Location: here
Contact:

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by san7890 » #655434

sinfulbliss wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 1:19 am -snip-

I’ve actually PM’d players before when the ban seemed off mentioning they could do this because I knew they didn’t know.
Personal san7890 opinion enclosed within (regarding notifying players that they can request headmin review), spoiled for those who wish to averse their eyes from a headmin's thought process should they be influenced themselves such that they lose their original stance completely:
► Show Spoiler
Simultaneously making both the best and worst jokes on the internet. I like looking at maps and code. Learn how to map today!. You may rate me here.
Mice World
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:11 am
Byond Username: Mice World

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Mice World » #655446

I don't see the issue, as long as the person isn't being disruptive or interjecting their opinion.

When I first appealed a ban I wasn't aware you could request a headmin review. It seemed to me that headmins only responded to appeals that interested them. So when the banning admin finalised their ruling, I felt I had no choice but to accept it.
It keeps getting worse!?
User avatar
Tearling
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:40 pm
Byond Username: Tearling

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Tearling » #655457

san7890 wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 2:37 am The issue that I sometimes see (or that some moderators/admins may elect to interpret) is that people use their one free "HEY YOU CAN REQUEST HEADMIN APPEAL ON THIS BAN" as a way of slyly working in a peanut post in FNR
I don't even see an issue here.
Lets just assume the worst. You have a person who just wants their opinion to be known, so they say "You can request a headmin appeal on this ban" as a way of slyly implying they don't like the ban. Why would this be bad?
Assuming they're the only one who said it, they said it after the admin rejected the appeal, etc.. etc..

This same type of logic can be applied to reports. Should admins ignore ahelps they believe might be biased by people reporting just because the one reporting doesn't like the other person? It should be a factor in the investigation, but simply because someone might be biased in making the report, does not mean the report should not be investigated.

If they're breaking the rules in a report, intent should not be a factor. Similarly if "You can request a headmin appeal" is not breaking any posting guidelines, intent should not be a factor.
Image
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:41 am From my perspective, players just want to genuinely be listened to. And I don't mean it condescendingly, but to genuinely have their say and for admins to listen, process it and reply. Even if you don't give two shits about what the player is saying, even if you disagree with every part of what they say, players are less likely to leave an ahelp pissed off if you've listened to them and given a reply that directly addresses what they've told you.
Shellton(Mario)
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2021 5:43 pm
Byond Username: Sheltton

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Shellton(Mario) » #655464

Why not just have every admin just tell the player they can request a headmin review at anytime before stating their thoughts on the ban or just put that in the ban apply template.
User avatar
ChristopherRobin
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:38 am
Byond Username: Christopher Robin

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by ChristopherRobin » #655494

sinfulbliss wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 1:19 am Here’s the issue right. The vast majority of players who write ban appeals have no fuckin idea they can request a “headmin review” because they’re not serial forumites with hundreds of posts here. In all likelihood they created their account just to make their ban appeal.
Personal experience here, I literally made this account just to make appeals, have never really spent any time on the forums besides that (reading things just for info about appeals) and have only just now discovered about headmin appeals because of finding this post in policy. I would never have even come to policy if not for Vekter's suggestion of opening a policy discussion over literal rule interpretation. Would have been nice to know this was a thing back when I was making my appeal (and I think its dumb that it's not clearly stated anywhere) incase things didn't work out too well in the appeal.
User avatar
Cobby
Code Maintainer
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Cobby » #655500

anything beyond saying "you can request headmin review" shouldnt be allowed unless it coincides with peanut policy, and you (the poster) risk your entire post being removed if you try to slide that in. I dont think thats a contentious take.

What I do think is very much contentious is that the idea players have to post in every thread that its possible and thats a good thing because engagement ig???

Headmins are obviously somehow being prompted to these threads regardless because its not like they have a bot that autosubscribes them to every "pls headmin review" variant, I am still lost on what the issue is here as to why it needs to be explicitly spelt out and why that onus cant be on the (head)admin. While I can respect the "headmins dont want to butt in" argument, I think theres a portion of that being flown over everyone which is the admin and headmin can chit chat about it all day with little consequence, the player that has to continue discussing the matter doesn't get to play the game. Besides, if you are arguing for a several days over the ban and theres no ownage bomb being dropped the situation was a lot more nuanced than the ban probably gives credit for.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Timberpoes » #655504

The onus can't be in the headmins as long as game admins are moving appeals to resolved instead of headmins.

2 of the appeals Vekter just moved to resolved didn't have any mention to the player they could request headmin review (but one was supposedly resolved over Discord?) when they were rejeceted. Now the appeals are locked and forgotten.

The assumption that the player isn't interested just because they stopped posting is flawed, in my opinion. There are lots of reasons for a player to lose interest in an appeal like "arguing this again against the admin is pointless, they're not changing their mind" combined with not knowing they have the opportunity to call for a headmin review.

Telling them at the 11th hour when they may have already given up arguing and just accepted the admin won't change their mind is also less useful than them knowing earlier.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
User avatar
Cobby
Code Maintainer
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by Cobby » #655635

I think I agree, the implication SHOULD be if the admin denies it then it should be given a response by the headmin and they, the admin, should not be resolving it.

Admins shouldnt be moving threads without a week of leaving it up for headmins to overturn (if denying) anyways, that seems like bad manners regardless of the outcome of this thread.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
User avatar
CPTANT
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
Byond Username: CPTANT

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by CPTANT » #655656

I think admins should always mention the possibility of headmin review in the closing post they make when they deny an appeal and mention a timeframe before the appeal is closed and moved.
Timberpoes wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
User avatar
CoffeeDragon16
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:31 pm
Byond Username: CoffeeDragon16
Location: Sybil

Re: The Implicitness Of Headmin Review Requesting

Post by CoffeeDragon16 » #655737

i'm not sure of a solution irt review requesting but i will say i do think it is a major problem with the admin structure that causes insane amount of burnout and can make it impossible to do your job

constantly i see problem players get notes that admins commonly agree on for behavior that would be bannable for anyone else, and hesitate to enact any kind of real punishment because they WILL force you into a week long forum war where they will inevitably request review and make the headmins take another week to review it. this makes it really hard to build cases on long term problem players as well, where you can't nail them because you don't have any note history, but getting any notes on them would require sucking their cock in appeals for months on end, resulting in shitty players ruining the servers for others for months on end

very often ive seen admins not punish atrocious play simply because that taking any action against them would be a massive slog for them and the headmins
Image ImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImageImage[
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users