[Deleted] (REVISED) Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Resolved.

Moderator: Board Moderators

User avatar
elyina
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:30 pm
Location: burning in hell for my sins
Byond Username: Elyina

(REVISED) Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby elyina » Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:37 am #478138

:roll: Tl;dr, I don't have all day to read this crap, what are you going to do? :roll:
  • Escalation policy rework: No more getting murdered for defending your workplace.
  • Player reports: Empower the community to hold griefers and linetoers accountable. See below for details.
  • Community Engagement:I will require all major changes to rules, policy, etc, to require community involvement and discussion.
:reallyhappy: Introduction :reallyhappy:
Hi! If you frequent Bagil, there's a good chance you've seen my name around before. I've been playing SS13 since 2011, for about 8 years now, most of that on /tg/station. I returned to you all last September, and I think I've adjusted to the new climate here enough that I could have a positive impact as a head admin.

:capid: Experience :capid:
I've garnered several years of experience as both a /tg/ administrator and player, and have been in a position of leadership for /tg/station in the past. For a period of about a year, I was a Game Master in charge of FNR and ban appeals, back when things were much less structured than they are now. I brought several reforms to FNR and the appeals process that are still in place to this day, chiefly rules 2-7 of the main FNR rules. I won't try to claim I was without controversy during my time, but I do feel confident in saying my judgement was sound and well regarded, which is a trait I've retained to this day. I am no stranger to making difficult decisions when they need to be made, and am not afraid of putting my foot down if I think it's the right thing. These are all traits that I think make me a good fit for the job.

:thelaw:Player Reports :thelaw:
Player Reports is a system I'd like to introduce that would give players a way to hold people accountable for rule violations and grief. We've had some issues lately with some thinking the rules are free to be ignored on bagil, and I think this system would tackle this issue and empower the community to hold these people to account if their in-game admin help went unanswered. It would also provide a place to compile evidence against those that have been breaking rule 7 (line toeing). Here is my initial outline for how it would work (subject to change, post suggestions if you have them):
  • There will be a special forum section to submit reports. It will include a form to fill out similar to ban appeals and admin complaints. These reports will initially only be visible to yourself and admins.
  • You must wait 24 hours after the incident before reporting it, to give you a cool off period and consider if it's really worth reporting or not.
  • This section will not be for disputing admin rulings that were already made in game. If your adminhelp was answered in game and you were not satisfied with the resolution, you should file an admin complaint instead.
  • A report can stay open for a maximum of 7 days.
  • Reports are not guaranteed to get an admin investigation. The purpose of this point is so that reports without merit and poorly made reports would not waste time, while those with merit would become a priority.
  • You will not necessarily be required to respond to a report against yourself unless the investigating admin deems it necessary
  • You will be required to present the logs of the incriminating behavior.
  • You will be expected to be civil when filing a report, just as is expected when appealing or filing a complaint.

:paperwrote: Other Issues :paperwrote:
  • Escalation: You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Escalation policy needs some work. I believe that the problem right now lies within how violence and responding to an instigator is handled. It should not be valid for an instigator to murder you for defending your workplace, or trying to stop them from stealing your stuff. I want to remove the right to "self defense" that instigators currently have and make it punishable for you to murder someone who was just trying to prevent a theft or a break in. I think this change will address the main problem facing escalation right now.
  • Trial Admin selection and review process:This is a point where I think I might dissent with a lot of other candidates. I think the system we have now is actually working out great for us as is, and the way I see it, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our admin trainers have been doing great work, and we've gotten some really stellar admins the past few months because of it. Admin candidates go through an intense amount of scrutiny before they make it to trial, and must be approved by the headmins as well. This process has worked well and given us several great admins as of recent months. I believe this is also what causes trial review threads to appear as a circlejerk; there's really not a lot of bad things to say about someone who has made it to review most of the time, given the high amount of vetting they go through to get to trial in the first place.
  • Headmin activity: At least from my perspective, headmin activity levels were something of an issue this term. There were a few complaints and appeals that sat for too long of a time, and this is something I'd definitely like to work to improve as a headmin. This includes faster responses to admin complaints, policy discussions and appeals when necessary. I can personally pledge that I am willing to put in the extra time to achieve this, but it will be dependent on the other headmins as well.
  • TGSleads:This is an issue that players may not be familiar with, but admins reading this definitely will be. As an admin, I often feel that I am not being taken seriously by the headmins. When there is something important occuring or a major decision that needs to be made, the headmins are often silent in adminbus while they sort it out in private channels, leaving the rest of the admin team at the kids table. No more kids table. We already have an adminbus filled with experienced and intelligent individuals, whose input is just as valuable as anyone else's. Inactive, potentially out of touch game masters from bygone eras should not be the first to give advice on serious issues. It's frankly disrespectful to our admin team that are out there every day giving it their all, and I intend to make them part of these discussions.
  • Community Engagement:I feel that the playerbase often has changes dropped on them seemingly out of nowhere. An example of this would be the naming policy change a few months ago. The community needs to be part of these discussions, and their voice should be the most important of all. Changes like these should not come to pass without community input in a policy discussion thread and a public vote if the issue warrants it.
Last edited by elyina on Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:51 am, edited 5 times in total.
Image



User avatar
bman
Github User
 
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:55 pm
Byond Username: Basilman
Github Username: Militaires

Re: Elyina

Postby bman » Sat Feb 23, 2019 6:50 am #478147

very vague introduction about "Seeking an escalation rework", which every headmin and their mother has fed us on any given election, would steer clear of this one, bros, generic line about being active and fast response times too, which is also hard to enforce or change in practice and there haven't been any real efforts to fuck with

edit: the only other thing that makes them stick out is the ban requests thing, and that's already dead in the water
pryce bax.
Image
Image

Tlaltecuhtli
 
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:16 am
Byond Username: Tlaltecuhtli

Re: Elyina

Postby Tlaltecuhtli » Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:32 am #478164

inb4 admin elected arianya 2.0

User avatar
elyina
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:30 pm
Location: burning in hell for my sins
Byond Username: Elyina

Re: Elyina

Postby elyina » Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:31 am #478203

bman wrote:very vague introduction about "Seeking an escalation rework", which every headmin and their mother has fed us on any given election, would steer clear of this one, bros, generic line about being active and fast response times too, which is also hard to enforce or change in practice and there haven't been any real efforts to fuck with

edit: the only other thing that makes them stick out is the ban requests thing, and that's already dead in the water


I explained why it's hard not to be vague about such an important change. You're not gonna find a single person that can pull a magic solution out from their ass to post on their candidacy thread that will be found agreeable by the wider community. As I said, it's going to take hours of discussion to figure out the best course of action, and I'd like to use opinion polls for the players rather than just picking a solution and hope everyone likes it. I also did put at least one idea for a possible modification to the policy I had. If you have some of your own, I'd love to hear them.

I don't know why you'd call ban requests dead in the water. This is more of the boogeyman syndrome ban requests suffers from where everyone wants to say how awful it is for the sake of agreeableness without saying why. It will of course require some reworking to fit into modern /tg/, and I've already been floating some ideas for such: First of all renaming it to "Player Reports" rather than ban requests, the purpose being to shift the tone of the section. Secondly, implementing a rule that reports stay open for a maximum of 7 days, after which they are closed by default. You will not be entitled to a response to your report just as you are not entitled to a response to adminhelps ingame. This would ideally result in petty reports simply being ignored and closed by default, while more important reports that serve to punish shitty players will be more likely to attract admin attention. If you still think it's "dead in the water", at least say why.
Image

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: Elyina

Postby Arianya » Sat Feb 23, 2019 9:57 am #478244

Tlaltecuhtli wrote:inb4 admin elected arianya 2.0


Besides the fact that this is basically a shitpost without much value, elyina predates me on /tg/ so...

Headmin activity: At least from my perspective, headmin activity levels were something of an issue this term. There were a few complaints and appeals that sat for too long of a time, and this is something I'd definitely like to work to improve as a headmin. This includes faster responses to admin complaints, policy discussions and appeals when necessary. I can personally pledge that I am willing to put in the extra time to achieve this, but it will be dependent on the other headmins as well.


To be clear, complaints are handled as a full headmin team decision. It doesn't matter how speedy you as an individual are, because the team has to come to a decision (and ideally, there needs to be discussion before that decision, so that people aren't just voting in a vacuum). This is less of a concern in ban appeals, admittedly, but I'm curious what your promises are to hasten a process that is already time limited to 7 days (a change from 1 month that the previous term made)

Ban Requests


Could you give more detail on what you intend for this (with the caveat that what you desire and what you can agree with the other headmins may not be the same thing, obviously)? Would headmins be the only ones approving/denying a ban request, or would GameAdmins for example be able to judge the case on its merits?
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

User avatar
elyina
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:30 pm
Location: burning in hell for my sins
Byond Username: Elyina

Re: Elyina

Postby elyina » Sun Feb 24, 2019 4:35 am #478545

Arianya wrote:To be clear, complaints are handled as a full headmin team decision. It doesn't matter how speedy you as an individual are, because the team has to come to a decision (and ideally, there needs to be discussion before that decision, so that people aren't just voting in a vacuum). This is less of a concern in ban appeals, admittedly, but I'm curious what your promises are to hasten a process that is already time limited to 7 days (a change from 1 month that the previous term made)

I'm aware that being able to do things quicker will require the other headmins to have higher availability as well. This isn't just related to complaints, but rather headmins having more engagement in general. There were some things that should have happened this term, but didn't seem to have much effort put towards them over the entire 6 month period. The desire to rework escalation has been around since before this current term began to my knowledge, but it seems the conversation on what changes to make is something that never even started. I would like to be a more proactive headmin when it comes to these things, rather than just waiting for things to happen.

Arianya wrote: Could you give more detail on what you intend for this (with the caveat that what you desire and what you can agree with the other headmins may not be the same thing, obviously)? Would headmins be the only ones approving/denying a ban request, or would GameAdmins for example be able to judge the case on its merits?

The ideal purpose of a renewed ban request section would be a place for players to gather evidence against shitters, and to present a more well constructed argument than they would have been able to on the spot in an adminhelp. Also a place for people to make a report against something they may have second guessed adminhelping during the round, or something that happened late into the round, on the shuttle for instance. It would also make people consider that there can be consequences for breaking the rules even if there are no admins available at that time. We've had some issues with bad players on Bagil lately, and I think this is something that could help the situation. Any admin would be able to answer a report, and just as it was before, it would not be a place to second guess adminhelps that were already addressed by an admin in game. I'd also like to hear what you think about my proposed reforms for the section I outlined in my previous post, if you don't mind.
Image

User avatar
Hulkamania
In-Game Head Admin
 
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:42 pm
Byond Username: Hulkamania

Re: Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby Hulkamania » Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:57 am #478585

elyina wrote: Managing this section was part of my responsibilities as a game master in the past, and I do not believe that it deserves the sour reputation it has gotten. I handled many, many ban requests myself, and most ban requests were open and shut cases. With the note messaging system we have these days, making someone aware of an open ban request would be easier than ever. It was a very useful tool that brought about the end for several of the shittier players on the server that ruin the experience for everyone. I won't try to claim it was without flaws of course. I would like to discuss a possible rework with the other headmins and pursue a trial run of this retooled version of ban requests.



You say that it wasn't without flaws, can you tell me what in your opinion those flaws were, and how you'd like to address that could they be re-implemented? Arianya touched on this a bit but I'd like you to expand further on who's allowed to handle a ban request? If any GameAdmin is allowed to do so, would the headmins be required to overwatch them like in ban appeals? Who would be allowed to post in a given thread? This kind of thing is going to be players calling out other specific players and that could definitely lead to people getting un-civil very quickly. If a player isn't active/on the forums at all and someone files a request against them, how would that be handled?

User avatar
elyina
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:30 pm
Location: burning in hell for my sins
Byond Username: Elyina

Re: Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby elyina » Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:17 am #478601

Hulkamania wrote:You say that it wasn't without flaws, can you tell me what in your opinion those flaws were, and how you'd like to address that could they be re-implemented? Arianya touched on this a bit but I'd like you to expand further on who's allowed to handle a ban request? If any GameAdmin is allowed to do so, would the headmins be required to overwatch them like in ban appeals? Who would be allowed to post in a given thread? This kind of thing is going to be players calling out other specific players and that could definitely lead to people getting un-civil very quickly. If a player isn't active/on the forums at all and someone files a request against them, how would that be handled?


The biggest flaw I think was the fact that admins responding to a ban request was considered a sort of "requirement". That and the fact that it could be difficult to get a hold of someone to let them know there is an open ban request about them. I think my proposed change and the fact that we now have the note messaging system make this a much lesser problem.
Just as any admin can handle adminhelps, any admin could handle a ban request. Think of ban requests as being an adminhelp, but just on the forum instead, and about rounds that already happened. Headmin review would only be necessary if an admin complaint or ban appeal is created as a result of the request. If someone absolutely cannot be reached during the 7 day period and an admin decided the report was worth attention, they would use their judgement to decide if action should be taken based on the available evidence presented by the person who submitted the report.
I don't personally think incivility was that much of a problem, at least in my own experience. This can easily be handled by making civility a requirement as part of the section rules, and automatically closing requests in which the person submitting it is being overly aggressive/rude, just as we do with adminhelps.
Image

User avatar
Hulkamania
In-Game Head Admin
 
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:42 pm
Byond Username: Hulkamania

Re: Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby Hulkamania » Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:26 am #478612

What if there's no individual admin who wants to take the time to respond to these requests? Would you make it a requirement? Appoint specific people as the ban request handlers? It could be an issue of them piling up over a long period of time if they aren't consistently being handled.

User avatar
elyina
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:30 pm
Location: burning in hell for my sins
Byond Username: Elyina

Re: Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby elyina » Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:36 am #478620

I'll quote from my prior post:
I don't know why you'd call ban requests dead in the water. This is more of the boogeyman syndrome ban requests suffers from where everyone wants to say how awful it is for the sake of agreeableness without saying why. It will of course require some reworking to fit into modern /tg/, and I've already been floating some ideas for such: First of all renaming it to "Player Reports" rather than ban requests, the purpose being to shift the tone of the section. Secondly, implementing a rule that reports stay open for a maximum of 7 days, after which they are closed by default. You will not be entitled to a response to your report just as you are not entitled to a response to adminhelps ingame. This would ideally result in petty reports simply being ignored and closed by default, while more important reports that serve to punish shitty players will be more likely to attract admin attention. If you still think it's "dead in the water", at least say why.

If no admin takes a report after 7 days, it would be considered not important enough to warrant an admin investigation and closed by default.
Image

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: Elyina

Postby Arianya » Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:05 am #478761

elyina wrote:but didn't seem to have much effort put towards them over the entire 6 month period.


There's no way for me to say this without sounding defensive, but this is fairly presumptuous of you. Of course, we all have projects we would have liked to get done that we couldn't but I think you're viewing things from a very idealistic point of view with regards to how much more ~proactive~ and ~efficient~ you'll be. I don't say this to discourage you or rebuff you for the implication you made, but more to temper your expectations.

elyina wrote:I'd also like to hear what you think about my proposed reforms for the section I outlined in my previous post, if you don't mind.


elyina wrote:First of all renaming it to "Player Reports" rather than ban requests, the purpose being to shift the tone of the section.


I have no issue with this but I doubt you'll achieve that tonal change when the vast majority are aware of what ban requests is/was. Perhaps in the long term (we're talking like a year plus), but that's assuming the re-implemented system survives that long.

elyina wrote:Secondly, implementing a rule that reports stay open for a maximum of 7 days, after which they are closed by default. You will not be entitled to a response to your report just as you are not entitled to a response to adminhelps ingame. This would ideally result in petty reports simply being ignored and closed by default


This is one of those rules that I think works better on paper then in practice, especially with something so public. In practice, if there's a "player report" that spans 3 pages of the accuser and accused arguing, even if the actual report was petty and non-actionable, just letting it silently drift into being locked and resolved would draw criticism of inaction. It seems to me more likely that 7 days would be treated (by players and admins, to some extent) as a time limit after which to start bugging the admins/headmins/etc.

While I personally don't have the experience with ban requests that you have, I think the critique that it by and large serves to keep alive minor squabbles that would have otherwise faded into memory is fair. This is ultimately a game, and while the rules are important, I'm not sure it's the best attitude to instil in players that they should be carrying a chip on their shoulder over something that happened in one round and making a public court case of it.

Ultimately the issue that ban requests serves to resolve ("admin offline, time 2 griff") I think is better solved by funnelling effort into recruiting and training admins (a non-stop effort, more or less) to ensure good coverage, but that's just my 2 cents.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

Skillywatt
 
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2018 7:29 pm
Byond Username: Tiguar

Re: Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby Skillywatt » Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:16 pm #478857

I like your idea for escalation policy but it would need a strong definition for what instigation actually is, or we'll end up back at square one with inconsistent enforcement and rulings.

Ie. Is someone trespassing "instigating"? Would they be punished defending themselves if the person being trespassed against responded with lopsided lethal force?

I get what the intent of the adjustment is but could see a lot of application of "context" which is where we have an issue now from an administrative standpoint.

With respect to ban requests, it was before my time. Did you see any drama spread from this? It seems like players could cause drama by just posting "ided" requests, or even if a legit one is posted, causing meta-grudge issues.

What are your thoughts about making ban requests invisible to the general playerbase and they become visible only if actioned on for the sake of transparency?

I say this because I really don't want to be accused of meta-grudge because I permabrig Shitter McGreytide after he posted a ban request on me last round due to "ided metasearch".

User avatar
elyina
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:30 pm
Location: burning in hell for my sins
Byond Username: Elyina

Re: Elyina

Postby elyina » Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:47 pm #479253

Arianya wrote:There's no way for me to say this without sounding defensive, but this is fairly presumptuous of you. Of course, we all have projects we would have liked to get done that we couldn't but I think you're viewing things from a very idealistic point of view with regards to how much more ~proactive~ and ~efficient~ you'll be. I don't say this to discourage you or rebuff you for the implication you made, but more to temper your expectations.

You may have a point about my idealism. Regardless of that, it is true that escalation policy was a major issue in the previous election, yet I don't recall even seeing changes really discussed. Would you disagree with that?
Arianya wrote:I have no issue with this but I doubt you'll achieve that tonal change when the vast majority are aware of what ban requests is/was. Perhaps in the long term (we're talking like a year plus), but that's assuming the re-implemented system survives that long.

I'm a bit more optimistic about it. This wouldn't be the only change I'd like to see, but I would like to draft up a whole new set of rules for the section as well, which would ideally set peoples expectations before they make a report.
Arianya wrote:This is one of those rules that I think works better on paper then in practice, especially with something so public. In practice, if there's a "player report" that spans 3 pages of the accuser and accused arguing, even if the actual report was petty and non-actionable, just letting it silently drift into being locked and resolved would draw criticism of inaction. It seems to me more likely that 7 days would be treated (by players and admins, to some extent) as a time limit after which to start bugging the admins/headmins/etc.

While I personally don't have the experience with ban requests that you have, I think the critique that it by and large serves to keep alive minor squabbles that would have otherwise faded into memory is fair. This is ultimately a game, and while the rules are important, I'm not sure it's the best attitude to instil in players that they should be carrying a chip on their shoulder over something that happened in one round and making a public court case of it.

Ultimately the issue that ban requests serves to resolve ("admin offline, time 2 griff") I think is better solved by funnelling effort into recruiting and training admins (a non-stop effort, more or less) to ensure good coverage, but that's just my 2 cents.

Not bothering admins about your report was definitely one of the new rules I was thinking about. Similarly to how adminhelps are handled, it may not even be necessary to inform the creator of the thread if action was taken or not, but rather that the report has simply been resolved. I don't think it would even be necessary for the accused to respond unless they are specifically requested to do so by an admin. You do have a valid point about people potentially getting pissy about their reports not being answered and it giving a bad image due to being public. I would like to see if this becomes a big issue during the trial period. If it does, one possible solution would be to make it so reports are only viewable by admins by default. They could be made public by an admin or perhaps there's a way for them to "approve" certain people to see the thread, such as the involved parties. I'm not sure if we have the forum tech for that or not.
I've always found the idea that people are "pissed about stuff for WEEKS" because of ban requests to be disingenuous. A ban request being up for a week doesn't mean people are thinking about it the whole time. The actual time committed to a ban request in that time period would be like 30 minutes.
I don't think "It's just a game brah, who cares" is a valid argument for letting people break the rules. "Just a game brah" argument can apply to almost anything. Why do we devote so much time to writing rules and policies? Why do we even have a sophisticated election system? Why ban people to begin with? It feels like a lazy cop out to me.
I think there is also a case to be made for people who didn't adminhelp due to thinking the person was probably an antag, or were afraid to adminhelp for whatever reason.
The other big case is to provide a place for players to compile evidence against people who frequently toe the line without doing anything actually worthy of an individual adminhelp. A lot of shitty behavior slides by because of it not being reported, simply because isolated circumstances are not considered actionable. I think we have a fair few amount of people going against rule 7 without a whole lot being done about it. I think those that frequent bagil would definitely agree with this sentiment. We had many such instances in the past of these kinds of players meeting their end due to a ban request, and I think this is something that will happen once again.
Skillywatt wrote:I like your idea for escalation policy but it would need a strong definition for what instigation actually is, or we'll end up back at square one with inconsistent enforcement and rulings.

Ie. Is someone trespassing "instigating"? Would they be punished defending themselves if the person being trespassed against responded with lopsided lethal force?

I get what the intent of the adjustment is but could see a lot of application of "context" which is where we have an issue now from an administrative standpoint.

I think instigating is well defined by the current policy. Jumping straight to murder for a minor trespassing infraction has always been viewed as shitty escalation. This of course also depends heavily on context. There is a big difference between trespassing in atmos because you are desperately trying to stop a station wide plasma flood, and trespassing in the captains office because you feel entitled to the spare. An instigator could still defend themselves to a degree, but I don't think they ever have an excuse to be employing lethal force themselves unless it was an exceptional situation. If they did end up critting or killing someone, they would have a duty of care to get that person back into the round immediately, rather than just not hiding the body and the "reasonable effort" to clone that the current policy asks of you.

Skillywatt wrote:With respect to ban requests, it was before my time. Did you see any drama spread from this? It seems like players could cause drama by just posting "ided" requests, or even if a legit one is posted, causing meta-grudge issues.

What are your thoughts about making ban requests invisible to the general playerbase and they become visible only if actioned on for the sake of transparency?

I say this because I really don't want to be accused of meta-grudge because I permabrig Shitter McGreytide after he posted a ban request on me last round due to "ided metasearch".

From my own personal experience, I did not see much drama erupting from ban requests. It was overall a pretty tame section, and the vast majority of requests I dealt with were done so civilly. This experience is why I largely consider the "salt mine" theory to be a community myth. Ban requests have been gone for over 3 years, which is a lot longer than most of the current playerbase have been playing. It's been an idea that's just sort of been passed down from generation to generation, making the idea of ban requests into the boogey man it is today.
Hiding requests by default is a great idea, really. If we have the forum tech to make "whitelist" for viewing individual threads, this would be probably be ideal. I do think it's worth giving a trial run with public reports to begin with, but this is probably the solution I would push for if it did turn out to be a problem.
Image

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: Elyina

Postby Arianya » Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:52 pm #479255

elyina wrote:
Arianya wrote:There's no way for me to say this without sounding defensive, but this is fairly presumptuous of you. Of course, we all have projects we would have liked to get done that we couldn't but I think you're viewing things from a very idealistic point of view with regards to how much more ~proactive~ and ~efficient~ you'll be. I don't say this to discourage you or rebuff you for the implication you made, but more to temper your expectations.

You may have a point about my idealism. Regardless of that, it is true that escalation policy was a major issue in the previous election, yet I don't recall even seeing changes really discussed. Would you disagree with that?


I'm not the best person to ask, since I didn't run on escalation needing changes.

In my own subjective opinion, a lot of people agree that escalation needs changes, but very few agree on specific changes.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

User avatar
elyina
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:30 pm
Location: burning in hell for my sins
Byond Username: Elyina

Re: Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby elyina » Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:25 am #479497

So I've been brainstorming a bit more on the player reports idea.
What I've thought up so far on how the process may work:
There will be a special kind of forum section for these reports. Threads created in this section will only be visible to the thread creator and to those in the in-game admin forum group. Admins may freely choose which reports they feel are worthy of investigation. A full response or investigation is not necessarily guaranteed, just as it is not when adminhelping on the servers. The accused will not be required to respond or even be aware of the reports existence unless an investigating admin reaches a point that they think the other side of the story will be necessary to proceed. This person would have an in-game note message with an expiry of 7 days added to make them aware of the request. If they do not respond in that time, it is treated the same as ignoring a regular adminpm, and the investigating admin acts accordingly. Ideally there would be a way to "whitelist" certain people to be able to view the thread, however I don't know if that is possible or not. All reports are considered resolved after 7 days, unless the investigating admin thinks they need more time. After the 7 day period, a post is made in the report notifying them that the report has been handled and is now considered resolved, then locked and moved to the closed section.

I think this system tackles the issues that have been brought up so far. I'd be willing to volunteer to be personally involved in every report posted during the initial trial period, to ensure it starts off smoothly and to help other admins with understanding the process. I'd also like to add that I don't intend to try to "force" this system through by any means. If elected, I'd considered it pretty much guaranteed I would need to sway the other headmins over to my viewpoint, and that will require a lot of discussion and probably some compromise. If in the end, an agreement truly cannot be reached, I wouldn't fixate myself on this issue and would refocus to delivering everything else mentioned in my OP post.
I encourage anyone reading this to give their thoughts on this. Even if I don't win in the end, I'll be content with at least having gotten people to think about it.
Image

User avatar
Arianya
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
Byond Username: Arianya

Re: Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby Arianya » Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:26 pm #480250

elyina wrote:The accused will not be required to respond or even be aware of the reports existence unless an investigating admin reaches a point that they think the other side of the story will be necessary to proceed. This person would have an in-game note message with an expiry of 7 days added to make them aware of the request. If they do not respond in that time, it is treated the same as ignoring a regular adminpm, and the investigating admin acts accordingly.


This part feels very rough and kinda gross. It's not unheard of for people to not login for 7 days, and its not unheard of for them to miss a message either. Possibly you'd be better off with a watchlist telling any admin to notify them and ask to respond there, but you might have to modify your timeline.

Ideally there would be a way to "whitelist" certain people to be able to view the thread, however I don't know if that is possible or not.


PhpBB is pretty outrageously archaic in this regard. You could probably achieve the effect by a manually assigned group (akin to the In-Game Admin group) but I see no good way you could automate this.

All reports are considered resolved after 7 days, unless the investigating admin thinks they need more time. After the 7 day period, a post is made in the report notifying them that the report has been handled and is now considered resolved, then locked and moved to the closed section.

I think this system tackles the issues that have been brought up so far. I'd be willing to volunteer to be personally involved in every report posted during the initial trial period, to ensure it starts off smoothly and to help other admins with understanding the process. I'd also like to add that I don't intend to try to "force" this system through by any means. If elected, I'd considered it pretty much guaranteed I would need to sway the other headmins over to my viewpoint, and that will require a lot of discussion and probably some compromise. If in the end, an agreement truly cannot be reached, I wouldn't fixate myself on this issue and would refocus to delivering everything else mentioned in my OP post.


An issue I can see people having with this, even if its not a concern I personally have, is oversight. If non-admins can't see resolved reports, and your report is resolved locked and moved after 7 days, some people may feel hard done by by the (perceived) absence of headmin oversight. I know in reality you would probably be reading most if not all of those reports, since its something I already do for ban appeals even when I don't personally respond, but the perception and the reality don't necessarily line up.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg

User avatar
Lazengann
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:26 pm
Byond Username: Lazengann

Re: Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby Lazengann » Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:51 pm #480452

elyina is cool

User avatar
elyina
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:30 pm
Location: burning in hell for my sins
Byond Username: Elyina

Re: Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby elyina » Sat Mar 02, 2019 11:59 pm #480642

Arianya wrote:This part feels very rough and kinda gross. It's not unheard of for people to not login for 7 days, and its not unheard of for them to miss a message either. Possibly you'd be better off with a watchlist telling any admin to notify them and ask to respond there, but you might have to modify your timeline.

Watchlist is probably a better idea. You do have a valid concern here, but I think an innocent person getting caught up with a ban because of this would be a very uncommon situation. There would be a lot of criteria that would need to be met in order for it to happen. When it does happen, it could be easily resolved with an appeal. This was a potential issue with the old ban requests section, and I actually can't remember any times this happened off the top of my head. This is all just of course my initial ideas on the subject, I would take plenty of time to gather feedback and ideas before attempting to implement a trial run.

Arianya wrote:An issue I can see people having with this, even if its not a concern I personally have, is oversight. If non-admins can't see resolved reports, and your report is resolved locked and moved after 7 days, some people may feel hard done by by the (perceived) absence of headmin oversight. I know in reality you would probably be reading most if not all of those reports, since its something I already do for ban appeals even when I don't personally respond, but the perception and the reality don't necessarily line up.

This is already a thing with adminhelps, which player reports is meant to be an extension of. We don't expect headmins to review every single adminhelp, just as they won't be expected to review every single report. It's already a common situation for someone to have their adminhelp go unanswered in game. I'm sure plenty of those people feel hard done already. If someone has an issue with how a report was handled (beyond the automatic closure) they are free to open an admin complaint or a ban appeal for headmin review, just as they are for any other administrative action.
Image

User avatar
elyina
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 7:30 pm
Location: burning in hell for my sins
Byond Username: Elyina

Re: Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby elyina » Tue Mar 05, 2019 12:23 am #481055

I've just done a major rework to my platform that conveys my intentions much more clearly. Please give it a read and let me know what you think.

Also thank you for your support Laz!
Image

User avatar
Stickymayhem
In-Game Game Master
 
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
Byond Username: Stickymayhem

Re: (REVISED) Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby Stickymayhem » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:45 am #481180

The only mix of new perspective and experience that makes sense as one of the headmins tbh. The other candidates are either burned out, too new or just offer more of the same.
Image

Omni Tears

Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image

PostThis post was deleted by oranges on Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:16 am.
Reason: we have a ban appeal forum, this is not the place
View this post

Isy232
 
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 5:45 pm
Byond Username: Isy232

Re: (REVISED) Elyina - Return of the elyimunnati

Postby Isy232 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:25 am #481769

To not get off track this time.

I find that in my interactions with you your punishments have been harsher than some of the other staff and this is not the direction I want to see /tg/ go.

I don't want to sound stupid with this, but I think space station 13 is a game that gives the player a lot of freedom, but I think if you put the boot down too hard it may ruin that.

Edit: I am against powergaming for sure, but I think occasional incidents which cause conflict without damaging someones round significantly should remain IC.
I did big goof and thank Dinkle for his mercy in only giving me a 1 day ban for this incident.
Image of all of the deaths thanks to Imsxz

Image
Image


Return to Archived/Deleted

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users