Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Locked
User avatar
CPTANT
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
Byond Username: CPTANT

Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by CPTANT » #659097

I have seen several Ahelps the past time where admins added these phrases to notes or bans where during the appeals the hostilities of those statements seemed rather....embellished.

I made to thread to discuss the issue because it seems that the pure act of disagreeing with an admin is now seen as being "combative".

I would like to ask for there to be some standards for when admins describe an Ahelp as actually hostile.
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.
Imitates-The-Lizards
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:28 am
Byond Username: Typhnox

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Imitates-The-Lizards » #659102

CPTANT wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:05 pmI would like to ask for there to be some standards for when admins describe an Ahelp as actually hostile.
What standards do you propose?
Image
Image
User avatar
CPTANT
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
Byond Username: CPTANT

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by CPTANT » #659105

Not saying these things without actually serious insults being issued would be a good start.
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.
iain0
In-Game Admin Trainer
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:23 pm
Byond Username: Iain0

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by iain0 » #659111

Hostile is more than 'rude words'.

<30 minute ticket>
Player: WELL THEN I guess in future i'll go around maxcapping everyone i meet who looks at me wrong as a security officer because THATS OBVIOUSLY THE CONCLUSION OF THIS TICKET
Me: ..... blah blah no precedent for future actions, enjoy that ban, blah blah

Countless more examples, thats just the most common strain of unnecessarily combative interaction.

Still, good luck writing a policy for that. Perhaps we can later on use it as a guide for players on "how to interact with other players".


(Also as an admin I don't think I've ever paid attention to such comments on a note, they're not hugely relevant to incident handling, though might become so if the players entire record comes under review for some reason, in which case the tickets themselves are likely to be investigated anyway, it's more just a marker than an actionable thing)
User avatar
datorangebottle
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:53 am
Byond Username: Datorangebottle

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by datorangebottle » #659133

From what I've seen, any such standards would be extremely difficult to enforce and generally not worth the headache. Just treat the admins like human beings instead of McDonalds employees.
Timberpoes wrote: Sat Jul 29, 2023 10:33 pm ImageAnother satisfied Timberpoes voter.Image
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 9:16 pm I highly doubt any other admin on the team would have given you this chance, except maybe Kieth because his brain worms are almost as bad as mine.
Vekter wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 4:45 pm At what point does someone's refusal or failure to improve become malice in and of itself? If you give someone a year to stop shitting on the carpet and they keep doing it but get slightly closer to the bathroom every time and sometimes they get to the toilet before it happens, at what point does it become acceptable to just ask them to go shit in someone else's house?
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:00 pm I'm sorry, can we get a real player to resolve this appeal? I don't like this trial player. They can't even set their own name.
Chadley wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2023 4:00 am WENDEZ, cute, cute. I imagine the sleeper activation code when I hear it. That's pretty cool. qB). But I don't like that it doesn't line up to be anything obsurd like WEWLAD. 6/10

SUGMA, nevermind it makes sense now. fuckyou/10
kieth4 wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 2:34 pm If it goes to appeals I will stand as the shield and protect this man's right to shit himself. Heavy is the head that wears the crown.
sinfulbliss wrote: I almost prefer Rave's AI-generated "We cannot accept this appeal at this time. If you would like assistance appealing in the future, please dial 1-800-1984-1488."
Pandarsenic wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 2:25 pm I think we can all agree that someone throwing a reverse revolver at Zyb as a secret test of character, and Zyb immediately fucking himself with it, is the best thing we all could have received for Christmas this year
Imitates-The-Lizards
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:28 am
Byond Username: Typhnox

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Imitates-The-Lizards » #659139

Okay, to be fair, this thread isn't actually entirely without merit. I came here from Fulp, and over there, disagreeing with the admin in any way, no matter how mild, is treated as being combative and hostile, and used to further punish players (it's one of the lesser reasons I left there). CPTANT could be a fellow fulp refugee who wants to ward off a degeneration into that sort of behavior, with this admittedly absurd handling of situation from this admin.
Image
Image
User avatar
Misdoubtful
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Byond Username: Misdoubtful
Location: Delivering hugs!

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Misdoubtful » #659181

CPTANT wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:05 pm I have seen several Ahelps the past time where admins added these phrases to notes or bans where during the appeals the hostilities of those statements seemed rather....embellished.

I made to thread to discuss the issue because it seems that the pure act of disagreeing with an admin is now seen as being "combative".

I would like to ask for there to be some standards for when admins describe an Ahelp as actually hostile.
What does calling people argumentative, combative, or extremely hostile because they are difficult people accomplish?

Does it deal with the behavior that warranted ahelping?

Is it going to piss people off further than someone already managed to do?

Is it going to make someone want to comply?

Is it going to create rapport?

Is it going to lift people up to be better?

I ask all of this as a difficult person myself.
Hugs
User avatar
iamgoofball
Github User
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:50 pm
Byond Username: Iamgoofball
Github Username: Iamgoofball

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by iamgoofball » #659182

admins should not be increasing the punishment for players because they felt they were being accused of something they didn't do

everyone knows when the admin PMs you it's because the admin thinks you did something wrong no matter what they say or claim, so why should players not be allowed to be defensive?
Last edited by iamgoofball on Thu Dec 15, 2022 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bepis
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 7:05 am
Byond Username: AurumDude

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Bepis » #659184

I don't feel it's wrong to label someone any of the above if they're acting like a child in an ahelp; that being said imo it's incredibly hard to define a standard for behavior that 'crosses the line' and doubt any reasonable policy could be put in place. I don't see it as any thing that could help resolve tickets amicably, but certainly a good heads up for someone resolving future issues with said individuals.
datorangebottle wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 6:06 pm Just treat the admins like human beings instead of McDonalds employees.
more of this
User avatar
Farquaar
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:20 am
Byond Username: Farquaar
Location: Delta Quadrant

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Farquaar » #659200

I get where you're coming from, but I think most admins and players intuitively get what it means to be argumentative or hostile in ahelps. If some hugboxmin gave someone a bad note because a player disagreed with their assessment of a situation in-game, the player should appeal and senior admins should course-correct so the admin doesn't keep making the same mistake.

Handling missteps like that on a case-by-case basis is all one can do, really.
► Show Spoiler
User avatar
Armhulen
Global Moderator
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:30 pm
Byond Username: Armhulenn
Github Username: bazelart
Location: The Grand Tournament

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Armhulen » #659203

i like to mention when players are exceptional in the good way instead of when players are about how i expect them to be
BrianBackslide
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:43 am
Byond Username: BrianBackslide

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by BrianBackslide » #659251

Terms like argumentative, combative, etc. should be disallowed in the banning reason. It's a very opinionated term in all but the most egregious, obvious cases. That may cause the next admin to unintentionally prejudge the player in question if they were ever to get bwoinked for something else later.

Does calling someone hostile serve any purpose for future admins handling that player? Or is it used because the banning reason is too weak to stand on its own?
User avatar
Nabski
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:42 pm
Byond Username: Nabski
Github Username: Nabski89
Location: TN

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Nabski » #659257

iamgoofball wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 1:14 am admins should not be increasing the punishment for players because they felt they were being accused of something they didn't do

everyone knows when the admin PMs you it's because the admin thinks you did something wrong no matter what they say or claim, so why should players not be allowed to be defensive?
Or because they want your side of a story.
Or because you're a head of staff and they want to run an event.
Or because you showed up in the combat logs of someone that was being a shitter and wanted to know if you were wronged too.
Or because there's a fun new feature that needs testing.
Or
Or
Or...
User avatar
CPTANT
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
Byond Username: CPTANT

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by CPTANT » #659258

I think it's better to just use objective terms instead of subjective. "called me a *****" is objective, "was hostile" is subjective. Because what ***** actually was matters, there is a difference between calling someone a kitten and calling them a turd.
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
Misdoubtful
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Byond Username: Misdoubtful
Location: Delivering hugs!

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Misdoubtful » #659270

CPTANT wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 1:22 pm I think it's better to just use objective terms instead of subjective. "called me a *****" is objective, "was hostile" is subjective. Because what ***** actually was matters, there is a difference between calling someone a kitten and calling them a turd.
Everyone is better off focusing on behaviors rather than attitudes.

Bad attitudes are typical of difficult people.

You can expect people to be cooperative in the end, but they don't have to like it or just comply freely.
Hugs
User avatar
Vekter
In-Game Admin
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
Byond Username: Vekter
Location: Fucking around with the engine.

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Vekter » #659399

Don't be objectively a massive cunt in an adminhelp and you won't get called combative.

Being slightly rude or curt in a ticket is one thing. Losing your shit and insulting everyone involved is another.
AliasTakuto wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
Spoiler:
Reply PM from-REDACTED/(REDACTED): i tried to remove the bruises by changing her gender

PM: Bluespace->Delaron: Nobody wants a mime's asscheeks farting on their brig windows.

PM: REDACTED->HotelBravoLima: Oh come on, knowing that these are hostile aliens is metagaming

[17:43] <Aranclanos> any other question ping me again
[17:43] <Vekter> Aranclanos for nicest coder 2015
[17:44] <Aranclanos> fuck you
User avatar
CPTANT
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
Byond Username: CPTANT

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by CPTANT » #659401

Vekter wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:39 pm Don't be objectively a massive cunt in an adminhelp and you won't get called combative.

Being slightly rude or curt in a ticket is one thing. Losing your shit and insulting everyone involved is another.
01:02:30: Ticket Opened by-sightld2: You've been spoken to before about repeatedly griefing this exact person. There's no reason for you as an assistant to randomly pie anyone to begin with.
01:03:14: Reply from-ferrolocus: I threw a pie into someone's face how is that griefing
01:04:27: Reply from-sightld2: How is it not? What is it beyond screwing with someone? But again, you were already warned about doing this sort of thing, to the exact same person.
01:05:42: Reply from-ferrolocus: Are you not allowed to screw with someone? A pie to the face is the most basic thing, I've had pies randomly thrown in my face more times then I can count when did it become an issue?
01:06:47: Reply from-sightld2: The largest point, is that you've been told off for repeatedly doing this to the same target. Last time you got away with saying "How is two pranks in 20 minutes consistent." At this point, it very clearly is consistently, targetted griefing.
01:07:47: Reply from-ferrolocus: how is three pranks over the course of days consistant, targetted griefing?
01:08:15: Reply from-ferrolocus: especially when one of them is LITERALLY a pie to the face
01:09:07: Reply from-sightld2: Even then, that kind of minor grief is reserved for clowns. You're not a clown, your an assisstant, going out of your way to get a pie, and again, target the exact same player.
01:09:28: Reply from-sightld2: but for the record. Yes. Three times in days is a pattern.
01:11:21: Reply from-ferrolocus: it was on a table in the kitchen, I didn't go out of my way to make it or obtain it. It was just there, in a place that everybody visits. If minor ""grief"" (pie in the face) was reserved for clowns then that's the worst case of inconsistant moderation I've ever seen.
01:12:18: Reply from-sightld2: If a single player repeatedly over the course of several rounds caused minor grief to you, and it was ahelped, it would be handled the same way. Can you just not target this player anymore? Ok?
01:13:25: Reply from-ferrolocus: sev·er·al#/ˈsev(ə)rəl/#determiner · pronoun#_&gt;_&gt;_&gt;more&lt;_&lt;_&lt;_ than two but not many.#"the author of several books"##it was TWO rounds a day apart
01:14:57: Reply from-sightld2: I'm asking you to not with this player. Can you do that or are you going to keep debating?
01:16:05: Reply from-ferrolocus: I can do that
01:16:17: Reply from-sightld2: Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the round.
01:16:58: Sightld2/(Glyphidoptera Hirashimai) has created a note for FerroLocus<br />Given a final warning about meta-grudging. Combatitive and arguementive in ahelps.
Such an objectively massive cunt. /s
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
BeeSting12
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
Byond Username: BeeSting12
Github Username: BeeSting12
Location: 'Murica

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by BeeSting12 » #659408

Players should be taking their policy discussions to policy discussion or ban appeals. Admins should not be saying players were combative and argumentative for players having a difference in opinion on the server's rules unless the player is disrespectful or extremely obtuse. I don't think ferrolocus was combative in that ticket. Argumentative, maybe, but he brought up valid points, and once he realized it was going nowhere he took it to appeals.
Edward Sloan, THE LAW
Melanie Flowers, Catgirl
Borgasm, Cyborg
Spoiler:
OOC: Hunterh98: to be fair sloan is one of the, if not the, most robust folks on tg

DEAD: Schlomo Gaskin says, "sloan may be a faggot but he gets the job done"

DEAD: Rei Ayanami says, "YOU'RE EVERYWHERE WHERE BAD SHIT IS HAPPENING"
DEAD: Rei Ayanami says, "IT'S ALWAYS FUCKING EDWARD SLOAN"
oranges wrote:Bee sting is honestly the nicest admin, I look forward to seeing him as a headmin one day
[2020-05-21 01:21:48.923] SAY: Crippo/(Impala Chainee) "Shaggy Voice - She like... wants to get Eiffel Towered bro!!" (Brig (125, 166, 2))
hows my driving?
User avatar
Misdoubtful
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Byond Username: Misdoubtful
Location: Delivering hugs!

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Misdoubtful » #659509

Yeah I mean, it's to be expected that people will want to argue their side of things, especially when feeling disrespected, and even more so when the efforts to come to a whole understanding for all parties is not made.

I'm not pointing at any appeals or tickets from whenever when I say that, I'm just saying it in general.
Hugs
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Timberpoes » #659517

I tend to just note when players are cooperative and helpful in ahelps. It takes the sting off for the players and my goal is those kind of clauses work as carrots to encourage players to do the same in future ahelps. It helps everyone.

I will say however that when a player manages to talk themselves into a harsher punishment I will often include something about what they did to earn a note instead of a verbal warning, or a ban instead of a note.

So I guess for me, that standard would be when a player successfully talks me out of a lesser punishment and into a greater one.

Also of note is something only admins have access to, an excerpt from an internal Guide to Rule Enforcement:
Punish malice, a lack of empathy, and constant reckless incompetency. A player carrying out actions with a malicious intent to ruin the round for someone else should be taken out. Be careful when deciding that someone was malicious in their actions. Other players might not deliberately act with the intent to grief or be a dick but they display a lack of any ability to empathize or consider the fun of other people. Take these people out too. Lastly, you might constantly find some people who keep on doing things like releasing the singulo setting the supermatter off or being a really horrible head of staff. Sometimes constant advice fixes a person, sometimes they just need to be kept away from certain roles.
I'm not saying all admins follow it, but one of our key resources for decision making encourages punishing people that are malicious, lack empathy and are constantly recklessly incompetent. Often the people who are not malicious, have empathy and are not recklessly incompetent tend to be the kind of people that also don't argue back in tickets. They make the process as painless as possible for everyone, showcasing understanding, and will just appeal anything they disagree with instead of taking it out in the ticket.
/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
Vekter
In-Game Admin
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:25 pm
Byond Username: Vekter
Location: Fucking around with the engine.

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Vekter » #659528

CPTANT wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:49 pm
Vekter wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:39 pm Don't be objectively a massive cunt in an adminhelp and you won't get called combative.

Being slightly rude or curt in a ticket is one thing. Losing your shit and insulting everyone involved is another.
Spoiler:
01:02:30: Ticket Opened by-sightld2: You've been spoken to before about repeatedly griefing this exact person. There's no reason for you as an assistant to randomly pie anyone to begin with.
01:03:14: Reply from-ferrolocus: I threw a pie into someone's face how is that griefing
01:04:27: Reply from-sightld2: How is it not? What is it beyond screwing with someone? But again, you were already warned about doing this sort of thing, to the exact same person.
01:05:42: Reply from-ferrolocus: Are you not allowed to screw with someone? A pie to the face is the most basic thing, I've had pies randomly thrown in my face more times then I can count when did it become an issue?
01:06:47: Reply from-sightld2: The largest point, is that you've been told off for repeatedly doing this to the same target. Last time you got away with saying "How is two pranks in 20 minutes consistent." At this point, it very clearly is consistently, targetted griefing.
01:07:47: Reply from-ferrolocus: how is three pranks over the course of days consistant, targetted griefing?
01:08:15: Reply from-ferrolocus: especially when one of them is LITERALLY a pie to the face
01:09:07: Reply from-sightld2: Even then, that kind of minor grief is reserved for clowns. You're not a clown, your an assisstant, going out of your way to get a pie, and again, target the exact same player.
01:09:28: Reply from-sightld2: but for the record. Yes. Three times in days is a pattern.
01:11:21: Reply from-ferrolocus: it was on a table in the kitchen, I didn't go out of my way to make it or obtain it. It was just there, in a place that everybody visits. If minor ""grief"" (pie in the face) was reserved for clowns then that's the worst case of inconsistant moderation I've ever seen.
01:12:18: Reply from-sightld2: If a single player repeatedly over the course of several rounds caused minor grief to you, and it was ahelped, it would be handled the same way. Can you just not target this player anymore? Ok?
01:13:25: Reply from-ferrolocus: sev·er·al#/ˈsev(ə)rəl/#determiner · pronoun#_&gt;_&gt;_&gt;more&lt;_&lt;_&lt;_ than two but not many.#"the author of several books"##it was TWO rounds a day apart
01:14:57: Reply from-sightld2: I'm asking you to not with this player. Can you do that or are you going to keep debating?
01:16:05: Reply from-ferrolocus: I can do that
01:16:17: Reply from-sightld2: Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the round.
01:16:58: Sightld2/(Glyphidoptera Hirashimai) has created a note for FerroLocus<br />Given a final warning about meta-grudging. Combatitive and arguementive in ahelps.
Such an objectively massive cunt. /s
HUH ISN'T THAT INTERESTING THAT IT GOT APPEALED, IT'S ALMOST LIKE EVERY SITUATION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE MAKING A MISTAKE ISN'T INDICATIVE OF 99% OF INSTANCES WHERE WE USE THOSE TERMS
AliasTakuto wrote: Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:11 pm As for the ear replacing stuff, you can ask Anne but I don't think this is what I was banned for. If I was all I can say is "Sorry for being hilarious"...
Omega_DarkPotato wrote:This sucks, dude.
Spoiler:
Reply PM from-REDACTED/(REDACTED): i tried to remove the bruises by changing her gender

PM: Bluespace->Delaron: Nobody wants a mime's asscheeks farting on their brig windows.

PM: REDACTED->HotelBravoLima: Oh come on, knowing that these are hostile aliens is metagaming

[17:43] <Aranclanos> any other question ping me again
[17:43] <Vekter> Aranclanos for nicest coder 2015
[17:44] <Aranclanos> fuck you
User avatar
CPTANT
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
Byond Username: CPTANT

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by CPTANT » #659548

Vekter wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 4:51 pm
CPTANT wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:49 pm
Vekter wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:39 pm Don't be objectively a massive cunt in an adminhelp and you won't get called combative.

Being slightly rude or curt in a ticket is one thing. Losing your shit and insulting everyone involved is another.
Spoiler:
01:02:30: Ticket Opened by-sightld2: You've been spoken to before about repeatedly griefing this exact person. There's no reason for you as an assistant to randomly pie anyone to begin with.
01:03:14: Reply from-ferrolocus: I threw a pie into someone's face how is that griefing
01:04:27: Reply from-sightld2: How is it not? What is it beyond screwing with someone? But again, you were already warned about doing this sort of thing, to the exact same person.
01:05:42: Reply from-ferrolocus: Are you not allowed to screw with someone? A pie to the face is the most basic thing, I've had pies randomly thrown in my face more times then I can count when did it become an issue?
01:06:47: Reply from-sightld2: The largest point, is that you've been told off for repeatedly doing this to the same target. Last time you got away with saying "How is two pranks in 20 minutes consistent." At this point, it very clearly is consistently, targetted griefing.
01:07:47: Reply from-ferrolocus: how is three pranks over the course of days consistant, targetted griefing?
01:08:15: Reply from-ferrolocus: especially when one of them is LITERALLY a pie to the face
01:09:07: Reply from-sightld2: Even then, that kind of minor grief is reserved for clowns. You're not a clown, your an assisstant, going out of your way to get a pie, and again, target the exact same player.
01:09:28: Reply from-sightld2: but for the record. Yes. Three times in days is a pattern.
01:11:21: Reply from-ferrolocus: it was on a table in the kitchen, I didn't go out of my way to make it or obtain it. It was just there, in a place that everybody visits. If minor ""grief"" (pie in the face) was reserved for clowns then that's the worst case of inconsistant moderation I've ever seen.
01:12:18: Reply from-sightld2: If a single player repeatedly over the course of several rounds caused minor grief to you, and it was ahelped, it would be handled the same way. Can you just not target this player anymore? Ok?
01:13:25: Reply from-ferrolocus: sev·er·al#/ˈsev(ə)rəl/#determiner · pronoun#_&gt;_&gt;_&gt;more&lt;_&lt;_&lt;_ than two but not many.#"the author of several books"##it was TWO rounds a day apart
01:14:57: Reply from-sightld2: I'm asking you to not with this player. Can you do that or are you going to keep debating?
01:16:05: Reply from-ferrolocus: I can do that
01:16:17: Reply from-sightld2: Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the round.
01:16:58: Sightld2/(Glyphidoptera Hirashimai) has created a note for FerroLocus<br />Given a final warning about meta-grudging. Combatitive and arguementive in ahelps.
Such an objectively massive cunt. /s
HUH ISN'T THAT INTERESTING THAT IT GOT APPEALED, IT'S ALMOST LIKE EVERY SITUATION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE MAKING A MISTAKE ISN'T INDICATIVE OF 99% OF INSTANCES WHERE WE USE THOSE TERMS
If I would dig the ban appeals I can find several more of these instances, I made this thread because I could see a trend. I don't see any mention of this part of the note being appealed by the way.
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
Archie700
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 am
Byond Username: Archie700

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Archie700 » #659769

Timberpoes wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 2:19 pm I'm not saying all admins follow it, but one of our key resources for decision making encourages punishing people that are malicious, lack empathy and are constantly recklessly incompetent. Often the people who are not malicious, have empathy and are not recklessly incompetent tend to be the kind of people that also don't argue back in tickets. They make the process as painless as possible for everyone, showcasing understanding, and will just appeal anything they disagree with instead of taking it out in the ticket.
Kind of a problem when the host himself says that people are allowed to express frustration if they believe an admin has screwed up.

viewtopic.php?p=646955#p646955
Players should not be expected to bite their tongue towards admins who fuck up, even in minor ways. They are allowed to express their frustration, and all of our admins are capable of handling it.
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Timberpoes » #659801

Our illustrious host also bans people for sassing or frustrating him, and isn't in-game handling tickets.

With all due respect to him, which is of course something said when you're about to say something with zero respect - neither admins nor players should be being cunts in tickets, appeals or complaints.

There are ways to express frustration or annoyance constructively or in a civil way, understanding that basically everything an admin does can be appealed or complained about formally.
/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
Misdoubtful
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Byond Username: Misdoubtful
Location: Delivering hugs!

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Misdoubtful » #659807

I hope we are all keeping in mind that being frustrated, hysterical, or going out your way to be a dickhead are all different things.

One of those things is completely understandable, one is unmanageable, and the other is an issue of malice.
Hugs
User avatar
Misdoubtful
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Byond Username: Misdoubtful
Location: Delivering hugs!

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Post by Misdoubtful » #682346

Everyone is better off focusing on behaviors rather than attitudes.

We aren't interested in setting a standard where something like this would be acceptable and someone would be able to point at it as being acceptable. We do not want to set a precedent of there being a shield for this sort of thing.

People will inveterately end up venting their frustrations, and will sometimes be - very reasonably - upset in tickets. That being said I (we) would rather see that be handled and managed in the ticket than see someone be labeled as combative.
Hugs
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Screemonster