Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Discuss policies and candidacies with the potential Headmins.

Moderator: oranges

User avatar
terranaut
TGMC Administrator
 
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 pm
Byond Username: Terranaut

Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby terranaut » Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:36 am #509903

Preface

Hi guys. Some of you may know me from playing on Terry, where I'm behind the AI SILICON OVERLORD and Samir Al-Hajeed (that guy in the monkey suit) or from the Discord. For those who don't I'll outline my motivations and then go onto some policy.
I first joined this place back in 2012, put in a lot of playtime and made some very good friends here, some of which I'm still in contact with today. It's for those reasons that I was admin all those years ago and they're the same I'm running for Headmin now. I'm invested in this community, care for it and want to give something back.


Silicon Policy

As AI Main, I think I'm qualified to talk about Silicon Policy. In my opinion, the rules governing Silicons and interactions with Silicons are mostly fine. However as things have been changed and added over the years, they were just tacked on or thrown somewhere in there. As a result, it's an awful and unreadable mess. The policy needs to be rewritten to make it easier to understand, easier to follow and easier to make rulings on. A draft for this rewrite already exists is available on my tgwiki userpage.

Drones

With Silicon Policy a hot mess no longer, there's nothing that says we can't have drones back.
For those unaware: Drones are a ghost-role. With research, Robotics can print drone shells, which then become available as spawners for ghosts, similar to Ashwalker Eggs, Cryopods in the Syndicate bases and such.
Their job is to build, craft and fix. They are not allowed to interact with carbons in any capacity. They have hands and can wear adorable hats.
Current Drone Policy gives them poorly outlined limitations in that they are not allowed to fix sabotage but only the resulting damage.
I would change Drone Policy to scrap that part; if a Drone spots a powersink, it is allowed to remove it from the grid. If a plasmafire is ravaging the station, a drone is allowed to stop this. Metagaming / Ghost-knowledge rules still apply; Two examples: Observing and immediately upon seeing a traitor place a powersink becoming a drone and dismantling it would be illegal. Pre-emptively re-arranging atmos piping to make a plasmaflood impossible without further re-piping would be illegal.

Roleplay Server

As far as I can remember, /tg/ has always been an LRP-server. People were roleplaying, although it has generally been tongue-in-cheek and pretty lighthearted. I don't think that what we currently do qualifies as LRP. Lately, more and more people are asking for dedicated RP servers.
We've recently gained two new servers, the idea of which was to relieve stress on their main-counterparts and distribute player load more evenly. On average we're below 5 players on either of those.
What I intend to do is turn one of those into a dedicated RP server with a slightly changed ruleset to encourage a higher roleplay standard. For example, players will generally be expected to do their jobs and fill the role they signed up for.
Please keep in mind that even Headadmins have no influence on the codebase (nor would I encourage a split of the codebase), so things such as baymed will most likely not be possible.
What is possible as far as I'm aware, however, is a relaxation on roundstart race restrictions such as flypeople being made available.

Events

Running events was my favorite part of adminning back when I was. As is, we have two servers named Event Hall. One of them has turned into an overflow server to deal with a big player influx from the Ssethtide/Youtubetide and serves as kind of as a catch basin for new players. The other is one of the previously mentioned new servers which is mostly barren.
I intend to have at least the mostly empty server earn its name and turn it into an Event Hall. Admins who are interested in doing so can use the Event Hall to host events, spontaneous or pre-planned. Events can be simple gameplay events such as ragin' mages or CTF or more roleplay focused events.
Likewise, players will also be invited and encouraged to run events. Players with ideas for events can approach Event Managers, which will be a new voluntary role for admins similiar to the supportmin role and possibly a role for players expressing interest and ability. They will discuss plans for the event and the means necessary to carry it out properly and give schooling in the tools required if necessary. If the Event Manager considers it necessary, the player will be given temporary server permissions to help carry out their event and help themselves, if willing and required. Under no circumstances will a player running an event be granted ban permissions, of course.

Transparency

Administrators are in positions of power and trust. Transparency adds more accountability, which keeps power in check and helps players trust their admins.
The lads over at /vg/ have a public banlog. Based on what friends who play there have told me, they fare exceptionally well with it, and I think we can aswell.
Information available in the banlog will be the banned player, banning admin, ban reason, ban type (gameban, jobban, ooc/deadchatban, etc.), ban length/expiration date and CID (an ID that byond generates based on the used hardware, a helpful tool to spot people ban evading). Players IP addresses will not be shared.

Escalation Policy

It seems to be generally expected that this is adressed so here we are. Escalation Policy, like Silicon Policy, is a convoluted mess. However, it's a necessary mess; it provides a rules baseline for players to follow and for admins to make rulings on. It allows players to act with certainty of being within the rules, at least if it was better written. I know about myself that I have a ton of notes and a ban for escalating against players who have insulted, attacked, harassed and griefed me on other servers which lack rules governing this. Players cause minor annoyances, trouble and/or upset to me, although not enough to cause administrative action. As a result, I retaliate and in doing so cross a poorly drawn-out line and get noted. From my point of view as a player, the player who started the conflict gets away with nothing while I get a track record. I don't think this is good for anyone, so I will make no grand promises about big reworks or even the complete axing of Escalation Policy. Similar to Silicon Policy, I might rewrite it to make it more concise, though.



Please don't hesitate to ask questions here or on Discord, either directly on the server or per PM (Terranaut#7054). I might put your question and my answer here in this post but if you wish I can keep you anonymous, just tell me if so.
Image

Tell me I'm a good monki: viewtopic.php?f=75&t=24558



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

Re: Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby Arianya » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:36 am #509945

terranaut wrote:Drones

With Silicon Policy a hot mess no longer, there's nothing that says we can't have drones back.
For those unaware: Drones are a ghost-role. With research, Robotics can print drone shells, which then become available as spawners for ghosts, similar to Ashwalker Eggs, Cryopods in the Syndicate bases and such.
Their job is to build, craft and fix. They are not allowed to interact with carbons in any capacity. They have hands and can wear adorable hats.



I don't see the relevance here. Drones weren't removed because of any issue with Silicon Policy, so why would rewriting Silicon Policy make them suddenly tenable again? Are you proposing changes to the Drones/their laws?

Roleplay Server

As far as I can remember, /tg/ has always been an LRP-server. People were roleplaying, although it has generally been tongue-in-cheek and pretty lighthearted. I don't think that what we currently do qualifies as LRP. Lately, more and more people are asking for dedicated RP servers.
We've recently gained two new servers, the idea of which was to relieve stress on their main-counterparts and distribute player load more evenly. On average we're below 5 players on either of those.
What I intend to do is turn one of those into a dedicated RP server with a slightly changed ruleset to encourage a higher roleplay standard. For example, players will generally be expected to do their jobs and fill the role they signed up for.
Please keep in mind that even Headadmins have no influence on the codebase (nor would I encourage a split of the codebase), so things such as baymed will most likely not be possible.
What is possible as far as I'm aware, however, is a relaxation on roundstart race restrictions such as flypeople being made available.


The codebase has generally frowned pretty hard on roundstart races being made of races that are available specifically via in game means (i.e. flies from teleporter mishaps). Are you prepared to start fighting with oranges from day 1?

Additionally, having seperate servers with seperate "levels of RP"/rulesets creates a big issue of server culture clash and admin enforcement. Do you intend to staff this server with a seperate set of admins who only moderate the "dedicated RP server"? If people mis-step on the dedicated RP server are they going to get a ban from *all* /tg/ servers?

Events

Running events was my favorite part of adminning back when I was. As is, we have two servers named Event Hall. One of them has turned into an overflow server to deal with a big player influx from the Ssethtide/Youtubetide and serves as kind of as a catch basin for new players. The other is one of the previously mentioned new servers which is mostly barren.
I intend to have at least the mostly empty server earn its name and turn it into an Event Hall. Admins who are interested in doing so can use the Event Hall to host events, spontaneous or pre-planned. Events can be simple gameplay events such as ragin' mages or CTF or more roleplay focused events.
Likewise, players will also be invited and encouraged to run events. Players with ideas for events can approach Event Managers, which will be a new voluntary role for admins similiar to the supportmin role and possibly a role for players expressing interest and ability. They will discuss plans for the event and the means necessary to carry it out properly and give schooling in the tools required if necessary. If the Event Manager considers it necessary, the player will be given temporary server permissions to help carry out their event and help themselves, if willing and required. Under no circumstances will a player running an event be granted ban permissions, of course.


Event Hall was so named because it was the instance for pre-planned events such as Summer/Winter Balls. How exactly do you propose that admins would run spontaneous events on a server that as you put it, is "mostly barren"? Also, does your intention to funnel events into the event hall mean you intend to restrict/discourage events on Bagil/Terry/Sybil

Also, by code necessity access to admin tools also gives access to things such as IP addresses, notes (secret or otherwise), and raw logs - which is a data protection nightmare. How do you intend to vet this?

Transparency

Administrators are in positions of power and trust. Transparency adds more accountability, which keeps power in check and helps players trust their admins.
The lads over at /vg/ have a public banlog. Based on what friends who play there have told me, they fare exceptionally well with it, and I think we can aswell.
Information available in the banlog will be the banned player, banning admin, ban reason, ban type (gameban, jobban, ooc/deadchatban, etc.), ban length/expiration date and CID (an ID that byond generates based on the used hardware, a helpful tool to spot people ban evading). Players IP addresses will not be shared.


This has typically been frowned upon within /tg/ culture, due to it's only real purpose ending up being shaming people for their bans or for unrelated third parties to throw fits about a ban with no context. Do you intend to push forward this even if, say, a majority of admins requested that their bans be exempted from this? Why would you publish CID, a ID that means nothing to the vast majority of players and could be used maliciously by others to enable ban evading or cross-contamination with a view to make it unusable.

Additionally, who are you proposing would develop such a system?

Escalation Policy

It seems to be generally expected that this is adressed so here we are. Escalation Policy, like Silicon Policy, is a convoluted mess. However, it's a necessary mess; it provides a rules baseline for players to follow and for admins to make rulings on. It allows players to act with certainty of being within the rules, at least if it was better written. I know about myself that I have a ton of notes and a ban for escalating against players who have insulted, attacked, harassed and griefed me on other servers which lack rules governing this. Players cause minor annoyances, trouble and/or upset to me, although not enough to cause administrative action. As a result, I retaliate and in doing so cross a poorly drawn-out line and get noted. From my point of view as a player, the player who started the conflict gets away with nothing while I get a track record. I don't think this is good for anyone, so I will make no grand promises about big reworks or even the complete axing of Escalation Policy. Similar to Silicon Policy, I might rewrite it to make it more concise, though.


I'm curious why you say Escalation Policy is a "convoluted mess" - it's one of our most succinct policies. Additionally many players don't have the same issues you do with regards to getting noted/banned, so what exactly are you proposing to change/rewrite? A empty promise of "I might rewrite it, in some unspecified way" might as well be a "I will ban all the bad people and none of the good people" promise.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

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

User avatar
terranaut
TGMC Administrator
 
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 pm
Byond Username: Terranaut

Re: Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby terranaut » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:59 am #509986

Fuck I hate nested replies and bbcode.

Arianya wrote:
I don't see the relevance here. Drones weren't removed because of any issue with Silicon Policy, so why would rewriting Silicon Policy make them suddenly tenable again? Are you proposing changes to the Drones/their laws?



I've since edited my original posting in reply to a thread opened by skoglol to be more clear on this; my intent is to treat drones as a subset or distant cousins of silicons with rules similiar to those of /vg/s MoMMIs or the drones on Citadel. As now outlined above, Drones will be able to interact with station damage or clearly detrimental modifications such as powersinks or an infinite disposal loop designed to trap players at will while adhering to metagame rules such as the famous disallowing of repiping atmos to stop an AI from plasmaflooding before you know it's Malf or generally abusing ghostknowledge. Players who break these rules will be dronebanned.


Arianya wrote:The codebase has generally frowned pretty hard on roundstart races being made of races that are available specifically via in game means (i.e. flies from teleporter mishaps). Are you prepared to start fighting with oranges from day 1?

Additionally, having seperate servers with seperate "levels of RP"/rulesets creates a big issue of server culture clash and admin enforcement. Do you intend to staff this server with a seperate set of admins who only moderate the "dedicated RP server"? If people mis-step on the dedicated RP server are they going to get a ban from *all* /tg/ servers?



Despite previous differences with him I have no plans to get in a useless fight with oranges when mine and hopefully his goal are to provide a fun experience to the players, and I'd talk to him about making concessions for the RP server within reasons. While flies are available relatively easily ingame by holding down A in the teleporter room if you put the beacon next to it, that does not really work well if you plan to roleplay as a character who so happens to be a fly.

I'm unsure how clear this is, but I have no intentions to write a completely seperate set of rules for the RP-server, rather a handful of rules catering to and encouraging roleplay specifically. Somebody who breaks a general rule will receive a regular game ban, such as somebody who logs in, maxcaps medbay and logs out. Somebody who breaks an RP-rule will receive a warning or an RP-ban. I have no plans for dedicated RP-Admins but rather continue to let admins pick which server they want to admin on, while recruiting from the RP-Server aswell similar to how people are currently recruited from the other servers.
As to how to handle the bans: At best, there'll be a new selection option in the ban panel next to ban type and severity allowing to choose between All / RP, as somebody who breaks a rule on Bagil bad enough to warrant a gameban should still be banned on the RP server. For those unfamiliar with the ban panel I'm referring to the yellow outlined box here, which would receive the extra option. At worst, there would be two seperate banlists, with the RP-server copying from the main servers but not in reverse, and a ban bad enough to be for all servers would need to be applied twice by the banning admin if it occurred on the RP server.

Arianya wrote:
Event Hall was so named because it was the instance for pre-planned events such as Summer/Winter Balls. How exactly do you propose that admins would run spontaneous events on a server that as you put it, is "mostly barren"? Also, does your intention to funnel events into the event hall mean you intend to restrict/discourage events on Bagil/Terry/Sybil

Also, by code necessity access to admin tools also gives access to things such as IP addresses, notes (secret or otherwise), and raw logs - which is a data protection nightmare. How do you intend to vet this?



Given that 'Event' can mean anything between something simple such as "spawn antag with custom objective" and something massive such as yesterdays Summer Ball I'm going to give some examples which I hope clarify what I have in mind.
Admins still can and should run spontaneous events that interact with an ongoing round such as an extended with little happening or one with all antags dead and nothing happening at their discretion. Events that hijack entire rounds should be pre-planned, announced and moved to Event Hall. As for spontaneous events, those could include relatively simple things such as the Raging Mages I mentioned.
As for the permissions there are two options at the top of my head; one completely circumvents the problem but I admittedly don't know if it's possible to easily do: A new +EVENT perm with commands and access required such as the game panel, most if not all things from +FUN, VV, a neutered version of the player panel without access to things like note history or IPs. This would be preferable in my opinion.
Another option would be a vetting process similar to the admin recruitment process. There's a fair amount of players who I think would make shit judgement calls when it comes to a ban or note but who I'm sure are not malicious actors that can be trusted with IP adresses. Thus if a player potentially qualifies for admin at least on a level of "do I trust this person with potentially sensitive data?", then they qualify as event holder. If not, then they would need to increase their social score with the PRC hand handling off to a willing Event Manager (admittedly rather unlikely; in such a case the Event would probably fail to fire off).


Arianya wrote:
This has typically been frowned upon within /tg/ culture, due to it's only real purpose ending up being shaming people for their bans or for unrelated third parties to throw fits about a ban with no context. Do you intend to push forward this even if, say, a majority of admins requested that their bans be exempted from this? Why would you publish CID, a ID that means nothing to the vast majority of players and could be used maliciously by others to enable ban evading or cross-contamination with a view to make it unusable.

Additionally, who are you proposing would develop such a system?



I'm unsure why an admin would request to be exempt from this unless they didn't fully believe in the bans they handed out - in which case they should think again about applying it. Seems to me it'd work entirely as intended. Peanut policy is still in effect, if a third party wants to talk about a ban it'll be confined to the Cuckshed. The idea behind publishing the CID was simply to lessen doubt about bans that are simple "X banevading" or somesuch (I'm aware that CIDs can be identical without it being the same person/computer). Ultimately I do not care too much about CID specifically being public but rather the administrative action being taken as a whole.
In this picture you can see my note/ban history on /tg/. Unless I'm horribly mistaken, adapting the system atlantaned is using for my suggested purposes would not be a big deal of work and rather a question of giving him the permissions required to interact with the data from the db, which I think he already has, and I hope I could convince him to do so.


Arianya wrote:I'm curious why you say Escalation Policy is a "convoluted mess" - it's one of our most succinct policies. Additionally many players don't have the same issues you do with regards to getting noted/banned, so what exactly are you proposing to change/rewrite? A empty promise of "I might rewrite it, in some unspecified way" might as well be a "I will ban all the bad people and none of the good people" promise.


I don't have any issues with escalation policy or following it - any notes or bans I was referring to in that context were on other servers, which lack such a set of rules. My /tg/ ban/note history is pretty tame, see above.
It does look to me however like some people have problems with it and people semi-seriously expect headmins and headmin candidates to have a stance of it. It has a very low priority to me and I only mentioned it to forestall the inevitable questions.
Image

Tell me I'm a good monki: viewtopic.php?f=75&t=24558

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

Re: Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby Arianya » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:30 am #509990

terranaut wrote:
I've since edited my original posting in reply to a thread opened by skoglol to be more clear on this; my intent is to treat drones as a subset or distant cousins of silicons with rules similiar to those of /vg/s MoMMIs or the drones on Citadel. As now outlined above, Drones will be able to interact with station damage or clearly detrimental modifications such as powersinks or an infinite disposal loop designed to trap players at will while adhering to metagame rules such as the famous disallowing of repiping atmos to stop an AI from plasmaflooding before you know it's Malf or generally abusing ghostknowledge. Players who break these rules will be dronebanned.


Even assuming such a set of rules was made (and followed) do you not worry that by their nature as easily replaceable, disposable lives that people will push the envelope on what they are allowed to do? For example, a drone who was killed in their station life by a traitor using their drone life specifically to sabotage the traitors other actions, or using their very cheap lives to keep trying something in spite of being blown/killed, with just enough meandering/other actions to not get caught metagaming?

And given their small size, rapid speed and no-collision (have to be aimed at, not just in the direction of) do you not worry players will get quickly irritated by them given the relative difficulty of killing them and ask for them to be removed again?


Despite previous differences with him I have no plans to get in a useless fight with oranges when mine and hopefully his goal are to provide a fun experience to the players, and I'd talk to him about making concessions for the RP server within reasons. While flies are available relatively easily ingame by holding down A in the teleporter room if you put the beacon next to it, that does not really work well if you plan to roleplay as a character who so happens to be a fly.

I'm unsure how clear this is, but I have no intentions to write a completely seperate set of rules for the RP-server, rather a handful of rules catering to and encouraging roleplay specifically. Somebody who breaks a general rule will receive a regular game ban, such as somebody who logs in, maxcaps medbay and logs out. Somebody who breaks an RP-rule will receive a warning or an RP-ban. I have no plans for dedicated RP-Admins but rather continue to let admins pick which server they want to admin on, while recruiting from the RP-Server aswell similar to how people are currently recruited from the other servers.
As to how to handle the bans: At best, there'll be a new selection option in the ban panel next to ban type and severity allowing to choose between All / RP, as somebody who breaks a rule on Bagil bad enough to warrant a gameban should still be banned on the RP server. For those unfamiliar with the ban panel I'm referring to the yellow outlined box here, which would receive the extra option. At worst, there would be two seperate banlists, with the RP-server copying from the main servers but not in reverse, and a ban bad enough to be for all servers would need to be applied twice by the banning admin if it occurred on the RP server.


So you would give up on alternative races for the RP server if oranges made it clear he was not going to okay it? Without maligning oranges here, he's known as a headstrong person, so just saying "hopefully our goals are aligned" seems rather optimistic.

In essence what you're saying is that the RP server will have different/additional rules to enforce RP - albeit with less severe punishment then breaking a general rule. Do you not worry that this will lead to inconsistency, for example when a Terry admin decides to moderate RP server because it's the only one without an admin and ends up violating what the players consider the general culture to be in enforcing the rules?

As an example from our past, when Terry was a very lowpop server with slow rounds, it gained something of a reputation as an adminkiller because it's slow pace resulted in admins use to Bagil/Sybil receiving complaints and negative attention for actions that were deemed too disruptive for Terry. While obviously you can recruit among RP server players, do you not worry that most admins will shun the server if it gets a reputation for just causing headaches?

Given that 'Event' can mean anything between something simple such as "spawn antag with custom objective" and something massive such as yesterdays Summer Ball I'm going to give some examples which I hope clarify what I have in mind.
Admins still can and should run spontaneous events that interact with an ongoing round such as an extended with little happening or one with all antags dead and nothing happening at their discretion. Events that hijack entire rounds should be pre-planned, announced and moved to Event Hall. As for spontaneous events, those could include relatively simple things such as the Raging Mages I mentioned.
As for the permissions there are two options at the top of my head; one completely circumvents the problem but I admittedly don't know if it's possible to easily do: A new +EVENT perm with commands and access required such as the game panel, most if not all things from +FUN, VV, a neutered version of the player panel without access to things like note history or IPs. This would be preferable in my opinion.
Another option would be a vetting process similar to the admin recruitment process. There's a fair amount of players who I think would make shit judgement calls when it comes to a ban or note but who I'm sure are not malicious actors that can be trusted with IP adresses. Thus if a player potentially qualifies for admin at least on a level of "do I trust this person with potentially sensitive data?", then they qualify as event holder. If not, then they would need to increase their social score with the PRC hand handling off to a willing Event Manager (admittedly rather unlikely; in such a case the Event would probably fail to fire off).


You note that "Events that hijack entire rounds should be pre-planned, announced and moved to Event Hall" - this is a pretty big restriction compared to the past, especially since the players may not care to follow an admin to other servers by the nature of inertia. Can you explain why you would object to "hijack entire rounds" events on say, secret extended on Sybil?

Your suggestion of permissions reworking to allow this is, by my casual understanding a pretty substantial undertaking, as a lot of those systems do not have any kind of granularity to them at the moment. If you have the means and drive to enact it, then more power to you, but I wouldn't expect it to be easy (and bearing in mind your code will still have to pass codebase muster)

Out of curiosity, the generally held view at the moment is that if an admin is doing more then one event a day, it's too much. How would you expect this to interact with a role whose pretty much only actual purpose would be doing events? Would the role be subject to inactivity removal? Given that events are generally not seen as ground for an admin complaint in and of themselves, how would you expect players to express dissatisfaction with a "events only" role holder?

On a more general note, just to note that there are many people who we can presume are "not malicious actors" as far as IP addresses - but the more people you give access to them the more chances that someone will be motivated by passion or otherwise to do something dumb with them, and the harder it would be to pinpoint whose fault it was. How do you expect to make it up to an affected player or the playerbase in general if your proposal leads to a data leak?


I'm unsure why an admin would request to be exempt from this unless they didn't fully believe in the bans they handed out - in which case they should think again about applying it. Seems to me it'd work entirely as intended.


As a general bit of advice, I'd avoid making sweeping generalisations of the admin team. There are 40 odd of them with very real concerns - not the least being that some would rather administrate the server rather then be dealing with forum drama because [doesntplay1] thinks the wording of their ban is bad and stirs shit up about it. And I'd re-iterate the base question - if a majority of the administrators are not in favour of the proposed system what is your plan? To push ahead regardless, acknowledging that you may lose a substantial number of administrators in the act?

Unless I'm horribly mistaken, adapting the system atlantaned is using for my suggested purposes would not be a big deal of work and rather a question of giving him the permissions required to interact with the data from the db, which I think he already has, and I hope I could convince him to do so.


While I obviously can't speak for Ned, it'd be best to air these kind of things with the person involved before putting them on your manifesto. It may be that Ned plans to take a year sabbatical from /tg/ in the near future, or that he himself is against the idea. It would be unfortunate to have something on your manifesto that was dead before it even got on the runway.


I don't have any issues with escalation policy or following it - any notes or bans I was referring to in that context were on other servers, which lack such a set of rules. My /tg/ ban/note history is pretty tame, see above.
It does look to me however like some people have problems with it and people semi-seriously expect headmins and headmin candidates to have a stance of it. It has a very low priority to me and I only mentioned it to forestall the inevitable questions.


It's fair call that I may have misread your original post re: notes/bans.

Regarding "some people have problems with it", I'm sure you're aware that the forums tend to be a pretty small slice of the community, and that on top of that, generally only people who butt heads with the policy tend to complain about it (no one is going out of their way to say "I love escalation policy!") but that's really all that needs saying on the matter given your notes.
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

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

User avatar
terranaut
TGMC Administrator
 
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 pm
Byond Username: Terranaut

Re: Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby terranaut » Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:41 pm #509999

Arianya wrote:
Even assuming such a set of rules was made (and followed) do you not worry that by their nature as easily replaceable, disposable lives that people will push the envelope on what they are allowed to do? For example, a drone who was killed in their station life by a traitor using their drone life specifically to sabotage the traitors other actions, or using their very cheap lives to keep trying something in spite of being blown/killed, with just enough meandering/other actions to not get caught metagaming?

And given their small size, rapid speed and no-collision (have to be aimed at, not just in the direction of) do you not worry players will get quickly irritated by them given the relative difficulty of killing them and ask for them to be removed again?



This seems more like a "how do you propose to handle metagaming?" question to me than about drones at this point. Little is stopping me from abusing other ghost-roles in the fashion you outlined. Hell, I could toolbox myself to death in medbay, gather info for a minute or so and then carry on with my new body. People who get caught metagaming eat hefty bans, whether drone or any other role. If players are irritated by drones and there are no satisfying code solutions (in response to your examples, they could be slowed down a bit or given monkey levels of collision insofar that they can ventcrawl and tablewalk but still catch bullets) then a poll will be held and drones possibly be removed. I'm not personally invested in drones being around; I think they're nice and it's sad that they're gone, but if the players don't want them despite policy enforcement and code solutions addressing problems then that's that. Drones work fine on Citadel, MoMMIs work fine on /vg/. They don't need to be an issue here.

Arianya wrote:
So you would give up on alternative races for the RP server if oranges made it clear he was not going to okay it? Without maligning oranges here, he's known as a headstrong person, so just saying "hopefully our goals are aligned" seems rather optimistic.

In essence what you're saying is that the RP server will have different/additional rules to enforce RP - albeit with less severe punishment then breaking a general rule. Do you not worry that this will lead to inconsistency, for example when a Terry admin decides to moderate RP server because it's the only one without an admin and ends up violating what the players consider the general culture to be in enforcing the rules?

As an example from our past, when Terry was a very lowpop server with slow rounds, it gained something of a reputation as an adminkiller because it's slow pace resulted in admins use to Bagil/Sybil receiving complaints and negative attention for actions that were deemed too disruptive for Terry. While obviously you can recruit among RP server players, do you not worry that most admins will shun the server if it gets a reputation for just causing headaches?


You're giving me pretty binary options. I'm not gonna shrug and say okay if oranges' first answer is "nah mate" but ultimately for better or worse it's his codebase and throwing a fit and telling him to enable all the races on the RP server or doing it over his head won't do me nor the server any favors in the long run.

I hope admins will be able to adapt to a server with mildly different rules (I still think that the rules will differ much more in your head than they do in mine) and have faith that they can do so. I expect some issues especially in the beginning when things are new and everyone is settling in and the culture you mention will begin to form, as much by the admins who choose to admin there aswell as the players who play there. Likewise in this period the rules will probably receive adjustment based on admin and player input before settling down, at which point I think admins can already be recruited.

Arianya wrote:You note that "Events that hijack entire rounds should be pre-planned, announced and moved to Event Hall" - this is a pretty big restriction compared to the past, especially since the players may not care to follow an admin to other servers by the nature of inertia. Can you explain why you would object to "hijack entire rounds" events on say, secret extended on Sybil?

Restrictions are the opposite of what I have in mind. Keep in mind I wrote 'should' and I mean should. If the game rolls secret extended and the admin has an idea for an event and the players are down, go ahead.
Conversely, I'm sure there's the odd admin around that has ideas for events and is holding them in, waiting for a suitable extended round. Rather than having the admin wait they can announce their intent to hold an event, give players a general idea of it and give a time for the event server. This is also more suitable for events which might require some setup time by the admin.
Arianya wrote:Your suggestion of permissions reworking to allow this is, by my casual understanding a pretty substantial undertaking, as a lot of those systems do not have any kind of granularity to them at the moment. If you have the means and drive to enact it, then more power to you, but I wouldn't expect it to be easy (and bearing in mind your code will still have to pass codebase muster)

My understanding of the permissions system is likely worse than yours at the moment so it's difficult to reply to this. I'm willing to make an effort to read into it and see if I can rework it and I'm not unwilling to offer a code bounty for it either.

Arianya wrote:Out of curiosity, the generally held view at the moment is that if an admin is doing more then one event a day, it's too much. How would you expect this to interact with a role whose pretty much only actual purpose would be doing events? Would the role be subject to inactivity removal? Given that events are generally not seen as ground for an admin complaint in and of themselves, how would you expect players to express dissatisfaction with a "events only" role holder?

Admins already have the permissions required to hold events at their leisure and won't receive any extra roles or restrictions to do so; as such there'd be no inactivity removal beyond just pruning inactive admins in general. The event manager role is intended to work as a bridge for players who want to hold events and is voluntary and can be added or removed by the admins at their own leisure.
The temporary permissions I would concede to a player to actually do their event would be on a per-event basis and removed after the event has concluded.


Arianya wrote:On a more general note, just to note that there are many people who we can presume are "not malicious actors" as far as IP addresses - but the more people you give access to them the more chances that someone will be motivated by passion or otherwise to do something dumb with them, and the harder it would be to pinpoint whose fault it was. How do you expect to make it up to an affected player or the playerbase in general if your proposal leads to a data leak?

If it proves necessary to give players access to this sensitive information, it will be restricted as much as possible and removed quickly to avoid this from happening, see above. Somebody intentionally leaking an IP address would receive a ban.

Arianya wrote:As a general bit of advice, I'd avoid making sweeping generalisations of the admin team. There are 40 odd of them with very real concerns - not the least being that some would rather administrate the server rather then be dealing with forum drama because [doesntplay1] thinks the wording of their ban is bad and stirs shit up about it. And I'd re-iterate the base question - if a majority of the administrators are not in favour of the proposed system what is your plan? To push ahead regardless, acknowledging that you may lose a substantial number of administrators in the act?

As mentioned peanut rules are in effect. If [doesntplay1] thinks they should stir up drama because an admin forgot punctuation in their ban they'll be confined to the hut, and as-is nothing stops me from calling admins big meanie poo-pooheads with garbage bans there already.
Regardless of that you're right of course that I shouldn't make a blanket statement and ignore concerns from the administration; as is, I don't know these specific concerns, so I can't really reply further.



Arianya wrote:While I obviously can't speak for Ned, it'd be best to air these kind of things with the person involved before putting them on your manifesto. It may be that Ned plans to take a year sabbatical from /tg/ in the near future, or that he himself is against the idea. It would be unfortunate to have something on your manifesto that was dead before it even got on the runway.

Sure, that's fair. My reasons for saying that I'd ask him is that he's done great work so far with the data available from the DB and gameservers and I'm pretty sure he could cook it up pretty quickly and throw it on a webspace.
Personally, my last interaction with SQL was a couple years ago in school and it was pretty surface-level but I think I could get the ban DB to cough up a table if I was forced to, so not all hope would be lost.
Image

Tell me I'm a good monki: viewtopic.php?f=75&t=24558

User avatar
Arathian
 
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:02 pm
Byond Username: Arathian

Re: Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby Arathian » Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:20 pm #510002

This is a good dude and this is a great policy thread.

Big support. Even though he plays slave caste silly cones.
Iron, blood and spider armies

User avatar
Atlanta-Ned
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:11 pm
Byond Username: Atlanta-ned

Re: Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby Atlanta-Ned » Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:00 pm #510008

A public ban list is trivially easy to implement, that wouldn’t be a problem at all.
Feedback pls (Don't bother though, because I am perfect)
### ListVarEdit by Atlanta-ned: /datum/reagents reagent_list: Water=/obj/item/weapon/gun/energy/alien
IcePacks wrote:>all you have is a taser and the cold realization that you're a haphazard bandaid over a problem that may or may not exist, applied by someone who doesn't know or care enough about their job to do it properly

OOC: Pizzatiger: God damn Atlanta, how are you so fucking smart and charming. It fucking pisses me off how perfect you are

User avatar
Reeeee
 
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:46 am
Byond Username: LibbySnow

Re: Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby Reeeee » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:30 pm #510139

Wants to fight shit he can't fight just to fight it.
Too hotheaded.
Literally the swamp that needs to be drained.

Nah.
signnatrire
fuck you I play the same catgirl with split personality on two different slots
of course my opinion is invalid you retard

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

Re: Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby Arianya » Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:58 am #510339

terranaut wrote:This seems more like a "how do you propose to handle metagaming?" question to me than about drones at this point. Little is stopping me from abusing other ghost-roles in the fashion you outlined. Hell, I could toolbox myself to death in medbay.
[...]


I agree that it has broader implications, but I asked it specifically because drones had these issues a lot and they tended to be grey enough that they caused considerable debate among not just players, but admins. Thus why I raise it specifically since you'll have to be the one to resolve those debates (both because you'd be a headmin and it would be "your baby" as it were)

Also citing that things work on other servers is always a bit of prickly point. Citadel and /vg/ do have different cultures and players to us, so citing that x feature works fine there is kinda besides the point. They need to work on /tg/

You're giving me pretty binary options. I'm not gonna shrug and say okay if oranges' first answer is "nah mate" but ultimately for better or worse it's his codebase and throwing a fit and telling him to enable all the races on the RP server or doing it over his head won't do me nor the server any favors in the long run.

I hope admins will be able to adapt to a server with mildly different rules (I still think that the rules will differ much more in your head than they do in mine) and have faith that they can do so. I expect some issues especially in the beginning when things are new and everyone is settling in and the culture you mention will begin to form, as much by the admins who choose to admin there aswell as the players who play there. Likewise in this period the rules will probably receive adjustment based on admin and player input before settling down, at which point I think admins can already be recruited.


I don't give you binary options out of spite or trying to put you in a corner, but more because it will come to that sometimes. You can't convince everyone (and some people won't be open to being convinced at all) so you're gonna have to butt heads, so I was curious what your response would be. Thanks for actually providing the (very hypothetical) answer!

I believe you'll have far more issues with the culture then with the rules, but I won't belabour the point. You understand where I'm coming from.

Events


Honestly this reads to me like one of those ideas that a headmin is really excited but gets no real uptake by the actual admins or players. That's not a diss to you, I've had those myself, but just a word of warning.

My understanding of the permissions system is likely worse than yours at the moment so it's difficult to reply to this. I'm willing to make an effort to read into it and see if I can rework it and I'm not unwilling to offer a code bounty for it either.


No real comment, fair enough.

If it proves necessary to give players access to this sensitive information, it will be restricted as much as possible and removed quickly to avoid this from happening, see above. Somebody intentionally leaking an IP address would receive a ban.


As long as you bear the data protection implications in mind, I think that's all anyone can ask :)


As mentioned peanut rules are in effect. If [doesntplay1] thinks they should stir up drama because an admin forgot punctuation in their ban they'll be confined to the hut, and as-is nothing stops me from calling admins big meanie poo-pooheads with garbage bans there already.
Regardless of that you're right of course that I shouldn't make a blanket statement and ignore concerns from the administration; as is, I don't know these specific concerns, so I can't really reply further.


It's worth bearing in mind that kind of thing doesn't constrain itself to just the NTR hut. By it's nature, a unpopular or controversial admin tends to get pinged in Discord or PM'd or so on and so on, and even if it's just in the NTR Hut no one really enjoys having shit slinged at them for just doing their """job"""

While obviously thick skin is part of admin checklist, it's worth bearing in mind that you may lose otherwise good admins to over-exposing them to critique from people who don't really know or care about what they're shitflinging about, and just want to go "admins bad" or the like.

banlist/Ned


Since Ned themselves has commented there's not much else for me to say :V
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry

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

User avatar
terranaut
TGMC Administrator
 
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 pm
Byond Username: Terranaut

Re: Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby terranaut » Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:44 pm #510389

Arianya wrote:Also citing that things work on other servers is always a bit of prickly point. Citadel and /vg/ do have different cultures and players to us, so citing that x feature works fine there is kinda besides the point. They need to work on /tg/


Sure they do, and if they don't, they can be removed again. But something nice that isn't any notable effort to change either way should at the very least be tried I think. I'd rather try and admit I made a mistake than have a defeatist attitude and never try (not that I am saying you have a defeatist attitude, I realise you are playing devil's advocate here a bit).

Arianya wrote:Thanks for actually providing the (very hypothetical) answer!


Thanks for engaging me and asking difficult questions.

Arianya wrote:Honestly this reads to me like one of those ideas that a headmin is really excited but gets no real uptake by the actual admins or players. That's not a diss to you, I've had those myself, but just a word of warning.

Very possible. If it doesn't get any uptake, oh well. If it does, I think it'd be a great opportunity and good player involvement. Ties into what I said earlier about rather trying and failing than not trying.


Arianya wrote:It's worth bearing in mind that kind of thing doesn't constrain itself to just the NTR hut. By it's nature, a unpopular or controversial admin tends to get pinged in Discord or PM'd or so on and so on, and even if it's just in the NTR Hut no one really enjoys having shit slinged at them for just doing their """job"""

While obviously thick skin is part of admin checklist, it's worth bearing in mind that you may lose otherwise good admins to over-exposing them to critique from people who don't really know or care about what they're shitflinging about, and just want to go "admins bad" or the like.



All of those are things that can be handled; people can be kicked and banned from discord if they decide to fling shit rather than use the admin complaint forum. Obviously I wouldn't like losing a good admin for any reason but reading the opinions in the specific ban list thread from the other candidates, admins included, makes me feel even more strongly that a public banlist is a good idea that should and I think will be heavily considered in the coming term even if I don't end up winning.
Image

Tell me I'm a good monki: viewtopic.php?f=75&t=24558

User avatar
terranaut
TGMC Administrator
 
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:43 pm
Byond Username: Terranaut

Re: Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby terranaut » Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:06 pm #512216

Someone who would prefer to remain anonymous asked me to clarify something about my plans for the silicon policy rework:

Image
Image

Tell me I'm a good monki: viewtopic.php?f=75&t=24558

MGP
 
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:47 am
Byond Username: PME

Re: Terranaut for Terrymin 2019/20 (ft. Silicon Policy, Events, RP Server and Admin Transparency)

Postby MGP » Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:45 pm #512230

modedit: this thread is about terranaut, not other people
Nothing here is too controversial, it just seems a return to form. When I read the Silicon policy I was surprised, as I thought that was the Silicon policy. Nothing there is very controversial or illogical or game changing, if it seems so, then some sort of entropic failure has occurred.

The servers that are sitting around now are hardly used. Clearly there isn't much of a demand for three US servers as one is regularly sitting empty. There are no real downsides to changing it to an RP server as far as risk goes. You lose a rarely used server, and at best get a well populated new unique server with a completely different purpose and game play style. The worst that happens is that it fails to gain traction and dies out and you get your sparsely populated redundant server again. Is that any worse than having a server with barely any people on it?

Seems like Terranaut wants to get things done, I think Terranaut here has secured my vote...

PostThis post was deleted by oranges on Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:40 pm.
Reason: shitpost


Return to Player's Headmin Election

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users