Extending bans because someone appealed your ban

[oranges]

Can we please please please make it a policy to not extend a ban because someone dared to bother appealing it and defending themself?

The current example would be sk upping robustins one day ban to a three day one - I think there have been a few in the past but I always argued against them as well and can't really be bothered to find the exact threads.

Irrespective of what they did to receive the original ban this is a highly toxic thing to do in a community because it dissuades people from appealing their bans even when they are particularly unjust or based on faulty information because you might catch an admin in a bad mood and just get more time added to your ban.

People should be allowed to argue their case without fear of further retribution - when someone continues to argue beyond the point of reasonableness the answer is to tell them that and then ignore future attempts to engage, not up their ban length. Also I find that the whole concept of someone being a "rules lawyer" is inherently silly anyway, it's not a crime to exhaustively detail and lay out your defense in a ban, and admins should at least respect the effort the person is putting in, if not the effect it has.

To me it seems like the admin team are no longer interested in justifying their own bans!

Anyway i hope you will consider it, it's not a good tool to have in the admin toolbox and in my opinon it's worth removing the ability to do so.

[Saegrimr]

I'm guilty of this shit myself but it really is a pretty shitty thing to do, even if they do deserve it.

[Armhulen]

they don't understand their ban and they openly contest it and STILL don't get it then sure but all they'd have to do to not get their ban extended was to say "okay, I see why I was banned"

it's not like hard or anything either

[InsaneHyena]

Extending a ban for appealing is pretty shit, and I don't even understand why I have to explain it. It's just something you don't do, even if the appeal barely holds any water whatsoever.

[Armhulen]

from what I said before, I don't think robustin's ban should have been extended. I'm talking about the people who call admins shits and fight and argue til the thread gets locked. but robustin fairly contested it without shitflinging.

[Screemonster]

The only way to justify extending a ban as a result of the appeal is if the appeal itself breaks the rules. If something else happens to come up in the discussion that's bannable then that's a separate ban. Extending it for not agreeing with it is just shit though.

[oranges]

they don't understand their ban and they openly contest it and STILL don't get it then sure but all they'd have to do to not get their ban extended was to say "okay, I see why I was banned"

it's not like hard or anything either

when someone continues to argue beyond the point of reasonableness the answer is to tell them that and then ignore future attempts to engage.

it's too easy for the point of reasonableness to be different amonst different admins making it hard to judge when you need to say "okay, I see why I was banned", that's why I think the ability to do so should be permanently revoked.

[Armhulen]

The only way to justify extending a ban as a result of the appeal is if the appeal itself breaks the rules. If something else happens to come up in the discussion that's bannable then that's a separate ban. Extending it for not agreeing with it is just shit though.

not agreeing=perfectly fine

FUCK YOU SHITTY ADMIN=hmmmmm

[Shaps-cloud]

The only case I can see this being acceptable is if someone outright asks for a perma or something, anything other than that is petty point scoring

[onleavedontatme]

I was just complaining about how a guy got a weekban for saying "that isn't on the rules page" last night when someone told him something was against the rules.

I think people do it because "bans are for teaching a lesson and if they disagree they have not learned their lesson" (or maybe some people are just irritated at being contradicted) but it honestly doesn't matter if they disagree as long as they don't repeat the action later.

[factoryman942]

Everything Oranges said.

[TheNightingale]

The only way to justify extending a ban as a result of the appeal is if the appeal itself breaks the rules. If something else happens to come up in the discussion that's bannable then that's a separate ban. Extending it for not agreeing with it is just shit though.

not agreeing=perfectly fine

FUCK YOU SHITTY ADMIN=hmmmmm

This. It's okay to protest against a ban if you think it's invalid, but if you break rules while doing so, extend the ban because of the rules broken.

Like if you spam WGW in your appeal, for example.

[cedarbridge]

I think people do it because "bans are for teaching a lesson and if they disagree they have not learned their lesson" (or maybe some people are just irritated at being contradicted) but it honestly doesn't matter if they disagree as long as they don't repeat the action later.

This is generally the logic I see applied to ban extensions. Typically the ban is a fairly light sentence or less than could be applied for the same offense. They're given the opportunity to be contrite for the poor behavior and show that they're not interested in repeating the behavior. When the appeal gets posted and its made abundantly clear that not only does the player in question not recognize that their behavior was bad but they they're likely to repeat that behavior in the future, the ban gets extended further to attempt to get the message to stick. I'm not sure it works, but that's certainly the rationale I see applied.

In any case, I don't see this being represented accurately. I can't think of any case where a ban was extended "for being appealed." As above, its generally extended for the content of the appeal showing that the offender was 1) in the wrong 2) unwilling to change the behavior that created the wrong. This applies to the recent example Oranges cited with the SK/Robustin ban. His ban wasn't extended for appealing. It was extended because through the walls of text in the appeal he showed that he was unlikely to change his play to fit within the rules that caused his ban in the first place.

In any case for applying a ban or extending one, the question is always "will this make a difference?" and that question doesn't always have a straight forward answer. For some players, an extra couple of days is enough to get them to stop doing what they shouldn't be doing. For others they'll just take a couple days off and take the whole thing in stride to doing what they were doing in the first place.

[oranges]

Not understanding why you were banned should prompt you to make a ban appeal so you can get a better understanding, discouraging that is a mistake!

In any case, I don't see this being represented accurately. I can't think of any case where a ban was extended "for being appealed."

How is this a mischaracterisation? If robustin had not made the appeal then the ban would not have been extended, clearly it was a result of the ban appeal (exact cause within the ban appeal aside), there is no mischaracterisation here, I'm saying that no matter the specific reason for extending the ban it should never be because of something that occured in the appeal.

[cedarbridge]

Not understanding why you were banned should prompt you to make a ban appeal so you can get a better understanding, discouraging that is a mistake!

In any case, I don't see this being represented accurately. I can't think of any case where a ban was extended "for being appealed."

How is this a mischaracterisation? If robustin had not made the appeal then the ban would not have been extended, clearly it was a result of the ban appeal (exact cause within the ban appeal aside), there is no mischaracterisation here, I'm saying that no matter the specific reason for extending the ban it should never be because of something that occured in the appeal.

Its a mischaracterisation because it gives the distinct impression that because appeal therefore ban extension. When that's clearly not the case in many circumstances. You're right, if he had not appealed and his appeal had not revealed a lack of contrition and willingness to change his play then his ban would not have been extended. But to say "he got his ban extended because he appealed full stop" is just lying by omission. Had he not appealed then no additional information would have been volunteered and it would be taken as rote that he accepted that his conduct was inappropriate and that the sentence imposed was sufficient to get the message across.

What purpose do you believe that a ban should have? If a ban is a corrective measure and the ban as originally applied would not serve that purpose, but a modified sentence would, why should it not be modified? If the ban is not a corrective measure, then what is it?

[oranges]

I'm saying it doesn't matter that he was a smarmy little shit, the tone and content of your appeal should never lead to anything more than a locked thread - failing your appeal is corrective action enough to prevent further abuse and extending bans in appeals is corrosive because it makes people not want to appeal bans.

[factoryman942]

A locked thread and/or an FNR ban*

and even then only if aforementioned wgw spam

[ShadowDimentio]

I'm guilty of this shit myself but it really is a pretty shitty thing to do, even if they do deserve it.

You're a shit admin for doing this.

Less shit for admitting it, but still very shit.

Any admin who does this should be fired on the spot.

[PKPenguin321]

I'm guilty of this shit myself but it really is a pretty shitty thing to do, even if they do deserve it.

You're a shit admin for doing this.

Less shit for admitting it, but still very shit.

Any admin who does this should be fired on the spot.

imo it depends on context, like for example in this ban appeal where it eventually turned out that he had been doing gay rape ERP with braindeads which wasn't noticed in the original ban, i think in that case it's ok

[Qbopper]

I'm guilty of this shit myself but it really is a pretty shitty thing to do, even if they do deserve it.

You're a shit admin for doing this.

Less shit for admitting it, but still very shit.

Any admin who does this should be fired on the spot.

imo it depends on context, like for example in this ban appeal where it eventually turned out that he had been doing gay rape ERP with braindeads which wasn't noticed in the original ban, i think in that case it's ok

NO EVERYTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE AND ANYTHING I DON'T LIKE IS CANCER AND DESERVES PUNISHMENT

[DrPillzRedux]

imo it depends on context, like for example in this ban appeal where it eventually turned out that he had been doing gay rape ERP with braindeads which wasn't noticed in the original ban, i think in that case it's ok

holy fuck

[Screemonster]

In any case, I don't see this being represented accurately. I can't think of any case where a ban was extended "for being appealed." As above, its generally extended for the content of the appeal showing that the offender was 1) in the wrong 2) unwilling to change the behavior that created the wrong. This applies to the recent example Oranges cited with the SK/Robustin ban. His ban wasn't extended for appealing. It was extended because through the walls of text in the appeal he showed that he was unlikely to change his play to fit within the rules that caused his ban in the first place.

He killed a single non-antag as a non-antag for what the admin deemed flimsy reasoning given the situation and got a 1-day ban.

He appealed it, and now he has a three-day ban for killing a single non-antag as a non-antag, for essentially saying "if some fucker is careless and spaces both me and someone else, if I manage to survive I'm beating the shit out of him."

In the rage, tears and regret thread, there's a recent post about an engineer who got murdered by the crew because another engineer was careless and let the engine loose, so I can see why Robustin might be confused about "murdering the fuck out of someone for being careless and nearly getting people killed" given that people were happily murdering people who were merely in the same department as someone who was careless with consequences. Saying "no, you don't get to lynch people for merely being fucking stupid" is a fair call, but upping his ban for it because "fuck you Oldman even though other players are getting away with the same thing" isn't in the same league.

[cedarbridge]

In the rage, tears and regret thread, there's a recent post about an engineer who got murdered by the crew because another engineer was careless and let the engine loose, so I can see why Robustin might be confused about "murdering the fuck out of someone for being careless and nearly getting people killed" given that people were happily murdering people who were merely in the same department as someone who was careless with consequences. Saying "no, you don't get to lynch people for merely being fucking stupid" is a fair call, but upping his ban for it because "fuck you Oldman even though other players are getting away with the same thing" isn't in the same league.

I saw that post too, but regrettably its less "they're getting away with it because admins don't care" and more likely "this wasn't reported so it just happened." I can't say without context so commenting on it would be just guesswork. That said, basing your play on what other people "got away with" is a pretty awful way to play.

[Luke Cox]

That is pure cancer and anyone who does it is pure cancer too

[ShadowDimentio]

I'm guilty of this shit myself but it really is a pretty shitty thing to do, even if they do deserve it.

You're a shit admin for doing this.

Less shit for admitting it, but still very shit.

Any admin who does this should be fired on the spot.

imo it depends on context, like for example in this ban appeal where it eventually turned out that he had been doing gay rape ERP with braindeads which wasn't noticed in the original ban, i think in that case it's ok

Big difference between that and "SOMEONE APPEALED MY BAN, HAHA TIME TO DOUBLE IT!"

[oranges]

it's still not ok, if admins had done their investigation before the appeal they would have spotted that anyway

[Oldman Robustin]

I gave my thoughts on this elsewhere, the kill and its dayban weren't even the focus of my appeal, if a headmin had strolled in and said "Nah, his radio message is what tipped the scales against your escalation, next time just don't board the shuttle if you're not sure if its about to leave" then we wouldn't have 1 policy thread, 2 NTR threads, an unresolved ban appeal, singulo thread, etc. I wouldn't love the decision, but I would respect it.

Instead SK is so absolutely sure they made the right call even though there's no less than 5 threads you can find people debating this now, they felt the need to ban me for my ban appeal just to send a message.

Just like last week's permaban I expect the worst part of this decision will get walked back (no banning for ban appeals, mmk) but the message will still be there "Don't question us or maybe next time we won't reverse the ban". I can't speak for anyone but myself and I've already told a headmin I'm not going run any more policy crusades, but I really do hope that the administration make a sincere effort at clarifying things (Is preventing your victim from getting cloned something that would ever push a valid kill into bannable territory?).

[confused rock]

That is pure cancer and anyone who does it is pure cancer too

[PKPenguin321]

it's still not ok, if admins had done their investigation before the appeal they would have spotted that anyway

well no i mean why would you check somebodys emote logs from every round theyve played before banning them on the spot for one thing? that kind of thing wont always turn up until log diving afterwords

[oranges]

then I don't believe you have the right to extend their ban for that case.

[Munchlax]

That is pure cancer and anyone who does it is pure cancer too

[D&B]

#NotMyAdmins

[Luke Cox]

then I don't believe you have the right to extend their ban for that case.

This. Players shouldn't be punished if admins are bad at their job

[oranges]

it's not a job, but your point is generally what I was getting at.

[Steelpoint]

Extending a players ban for questioning it is one step short of banning someone outright for questioning a admin or one of their decisions.

[Armhulen]

Extending a players ban for questioning it is one step short of banning someone outright for questioning a admin or one of their decisions.

this actually makes me reconsider what I said. no raising bans for appealing unless they discover more rule breaking.

[PKPenguin321]

then I don't believe you have the right to extend their ban for that case.

This. Players shouldn't be punished if admins are bad at their job

banning someone for like, random murder or some shit does not consist of logdiving every log file since they joined and searching everything including all their emotes, attacks, things said IC and OOC, etc.

in cases like these where something otherwise undetectable comes up in a ban appeal (such as the player admitting they are underaged), a ban extension is okay

[Pascal125]

Yeah. Except in that case, all he did was take some time out of his day to try and appeal a ban (well formatted and presented, at that) in hopes of explaining his side of the story and why he felt his actions were justified (calmly, at that). In a way that is lengthy yet still short and to the point a few times, only to be shut down with vague, short, sometimes ad-hom responses. (which is admittedly a common thing, here).

I mean, yeah. He did some questionable things. Seems a little deserved, even if theoretically the other guy could have launched and spaced both those miners shift start in doing what he did. He only acted to prevent himself from being shit on later in the round, people shouldn't be punished for taking effort to explain themselves and refute something they do not agree with. But hey, that's just me.

[oranges]

Yeah. Except in that case, all he did was take some time out of his day to try and appeal a ban (well formatted and presented, at that) in hopes of explaining his side of the story and why he felt his actions were justified (calmly, at that). In a way that is lengthy yet still short and to the point a few times, only to be shut down with vague, short, sometimes ad-hom responses. (which is admittedly a common thing, here).

I mean, yeah. He did some questionable things. Seems a little deserved, even if theoretically the other guy could have launched and spaced both those miners shift start in doing what he did. He only acted to prevent himself from being shit on later in the round, people shouldn't be punished for taking effort to explain themselves and refute something they do not agree with. But hey, that's just me.

please dont' make this thread about oldman, it's just an example

[oranges]

but first we have to talk about parallel bannings.

[Luke Cox]

Just out of curiosity, which admins have actually done this?

[Oldman Robustin]

TehPear handled my appeal well, firmly rejected the notion of bans for appealing bans (saying it should only apply to people who reject headmin rulings, and even then, rarely).

They didn't get all the details right (the antag in my prior case was not known or identified as an antag, shouldn't be relevant; miner #3's timing on the shuttle was confusing; one person shouldn't be more accountable for killing just because they got more hits in, especially when both parties agreed to murder in advance), but it was a simple, thoughtful answer that should be the standard for wrapping up these kinds of appeals.

[Jacough]

I'm guilty of this shit myself but it really is a pretty shitty thing to do, even if they do deserve it.

You're a shit admin for doing this.

Less shit for admitting it, but still very shit.

Any admin who does this should be fired on the spot.

imo it depends on context, like for example in this ban appeal where it eventually turned out that he had been doing gay rape ERP with braindeads which wasn't noticed in the original ban, i think in that case it's ok

> proudly boasts that he fucked 20-30 people for less than a few seconds

I don't think being less than a minute man is something to brag about

[Steelpoint]

At the end of the day, extending someone's ban because they appeal it is simply one of the worst things a admin can do to demonstrate they should not be a admin.

Bans are meant to ensure the banned player is given time to reflect on why they were banned and how to avoid it in the future. With the hope that they won't commit that act again and they'll be a better player for it.

Banning someone for appealing a ban when they think they have grounds to do so serves no purpose what so ever, but in fact it serves to do the opposite.

Also as I mentioned earlier, I believe that banning someone for making a ban appeal is one step below banning someone for criticising a admin. The moment /tg/ becomes known for banning people for criticising admins and banning people for appealing possibly unfair or misunderstood bans is the moment /tg/ will end, or at least never recover in population outside of server hub players.

[WarbossLincoln]

imo it depends on context, like for example in this ban appeal where it eventually turned out that he had been doing gay rape ERP with braindeads which wasn't noticed in the original ban, i think in that case it's ok

This is beautiful, truly the face of SS13.

[Cobby]

Bans are meant to ensure the banned player is given time to reflect on why they were banned and how to avoid it in the future. With the hope that they won't commit that act again and they'll be a better player for it.

So you agree with SK in the fact that bans COULD be raised if the banning administrator does not feel the initial ban length has given the individual adequate time to reflect on why they were banned and avoid it in the future?

At what line do you want the moderator to stop at when they feel as though someone is not getting the message? Is it possible that "making an appeal" and "not understanding why you're banned" are convoluted together [because "extending bans because someone appealed" is misleading]?

I'm just a little confused as to where people want to draw this moderator-equivalent of "rule 10" where sometimes you just lose at explaining to someone why they're wrong, and why is that okay when it [particularly this incident] negatively impact's people on the game [which could be yourself next-time].

I mean the alternative to this is to ban for longer and shorten as they appeal, but telling people to appeal for their ban to be lessened just seems like busywork for both them and the administrator.

[Wyzack]

I miss Big Faggot he was funny

[Arianya]

My feelings in a few bulletpoints:

1. Extending bans is probably okay if the ban appeal reveals the player doesn't really show any contrition or regret for what they did.

1a. Obviously, this shouldn't affect things if they are such because they believe their action itself wasn't wrong/against the rules

1b. It'd probably be okay to make extending bans a headmin only decision as part of a ban appeal resolution.

2. Ban appeals isn't for getting an explanation of your ban. That should either happen before the ban or in #supportbus. Its Ban Appeals not Ban Explanations.

2a. We have PMs on the forums! If you can't get ahold of your banning admin on IRC for whatever reason, shoot him a PM. If you're lucky hes an unobservant turd and you can complain to the headmins about him ignoring you!

3. lmao why does robustin get to complain about an admin standing his ground in an appeal when he linked to a thread where he, as an admin, continued to complain about a behaviour after a then-headmin told him it was allowed and resolved the appeal.

[oranges]

If someone doesn't get the point of the ban they will reoffend, at which point you can feel free to lay down the biggest ban in your arsenal, doing it because they appealed is prosecuting them before they commit the crime.

[John_Oxford]

>be oranges
>post a thread in FnR about admins doing something shitty
>lots of people agree with him
>oxford agrees with him
>he fails to realize one true meme

>admin accountability

On a serious note however, yes. This is a very valid point, what i'm trying to say is even if we all mutually agree its a shit thing to do i sincerely doubt it'll have an effect on the outcome of any of the current or future bans because admins are held to a standard by the host, not the community. It's just smoke in the mirror, a illusion that players control what admins do.