LUKAS BEEDELL/ KIETH "4" THE PLAYERS.

[kieth4]

Hello! It’s me kieth4/Lukas Beedell, won in march 2023. Was a headmin with timber/ mdoubtful, had a good amount of fun that term and now I’m running again.



TLDR:
-REVERT HEAD OF STAFF AND SEC STANDARD CHANGES- I DO NOT THINK THAT USING THE RULES TO TRY AND FORCE SOMEONE TO PLAY IN A CERTAIN WAY IS GOOD.

-KEEP TIDING ALIVE BUT LET PEOPLE STAB TIDERS- I AM PRO TIDING AND THINK IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT BUT TIDERS SHOULD BE VALID TO DIE.

-TOOLBOX 1V1 TO GET YOUR BAN LIFTED IF THE BAN ISN'T HORRIBLE

-SHIFT LRP THREAT UP SLIGHTLY. IT'S A BIT TOO LOW CRANK IT UP.

-MENTORS IF OTHER HEADMINS AGREE


REVERT HEAD AND SEC STANDARD CHANGES

I’m not a top 10 hater of this term but I do disagree with some of their policy and core rule changes. I do not feel that these are a net positive for the servers and instead exist in an uneasy position where there is limited enforcement of them and very few if any precedents set by appeals. I would like thus revert some of these changes to improve the experience faced by players.

I have an issue with the following rule change, linked, is the policy thread.
viewtopic.php?f=85&t=35253

This changes rule 5: from,

► Show Spoiler

Players in a head of staff, AI/Silicon role, or a team conversion role require a minimum amount of effort; generally considered to be not logging out at or near roundstart.

To:

► Show Spoiler

Players in vital job roles require a minimum amount of effort. As a Head of Staff, you should be a reliable worker for your department, and are expected to perform the minimum duties of that role to the best of your ability. As an upside, being THE BOSS allows you to dictate the workflow of your department as you like, so long as you are reasonable - and have the ability to demote staff who do not comply, with similar protections that security is afforded for valid arrests. Notify admins if you must leave near round start, and make an attempt to inform other players IC as well for Command or AI roles.

I very heavily disagree with what the rule’s context changes (outside of adding the other rule precedents to it) as it bleeds into gameplay. A head of staff should have the freedom to fail his job, to have a completely shambolic department even as long as it is not happening every single round. They should have the freedom to completely ignore their department if they so wish to under the threat of ic consequence. I hate the idea that they need to be scared into slaving away by ooc rules.

Some of my favourite rounds have seen heads abandon their departments and be quickly replaced by others to continue the running of the station like a well-oiled machine. Or even heads abandoning their departments for them to collapse!

Instead, I propose making this from an OOC issue to an ic one; returning rule 5 to a similar state as the previous one (with the precedents still staying in the rule becuz they’re cool) and adding a new policy “If the SM explodes before 20 minutes due to a lack of CE oversight the crew may lynch the CE” with the CE having the same protection as a talking mime.

I feel that these kinds of rules work better and allow people to take the power of the round into their hands as opposed to having to defer to admins over what ultimately are rather minor issues.

This next policy I would scrap entirely;

viewtopic.php?p=711388#p711388

Big sec player, I do not think this is very well written nor would it feel awesome playing knowing that if you do not do your job well enough or make the wrong choice the hammer might sweep you off your feet. Not much else to say here, big sec player and this is bad.

KEEP TIDING ALIVE BUT LET PEOPLE STAB TIDERS



I am a fan of LRP tiding as it has existed for a while. You fuck around and tide, then you find out. Most people leave the situation happy, and the next round the grey man is back greying everywhere.

I like tiding and wish for it to continue existing, I think that it's in the best state it has ever been with it having clear-cut lines that the grey tide is punished for crossing. It adds conflict to often boring rounds and creates job content for Medbay, security and engi. I am 10000% pro tiding.

However, following this ban appeal:
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=35589
There has been a good amount of discourse around the idea of, “Should breaking into a certain xyz high-risk area make you instantly valid for death?” I believe so! With the obvious caveat that it’s not round removal until you’re returning more than once. I whole heartedly hope that validity for this is not removed but that is beside the point.

As a many year- many hour tider I thought back to my young tiding days where I would get smed, or grafted onto a monkey or some other bullshit in response to my excessive tiding only to realise that this has majorly gone kaput. This feels like an absolute shame too, so I would like to bring into existence policy allowing departments to take extreme measures against tiders. Why? I think that it is funny, healthy for the game and allows for more organic IC conflict to arise without needing to get the admins involved.

Much like “being in place xyz makes you valid to get blasted” the idea behind this would be that, “When committing action xyz(need to figure out what the actual threshold would be, this would be a conversation to be had with other headmins) if a tider is asked to stop (x) number of times (by a figure of authority perhaps) and does not stop. The department is authorised to skip escalation and remove the tider. (This needs some more rewording but the idea would be something like an SM, taking all their organs for med, feeding them to the slimes in sci- stuff that is super soulful but RARELY does it see the light of day). The tider is authorised to defend themselves but may not outright murder/round remove their attackers. If the tider escapes, the department is not authorised to resume conflict until the tider has returned.

In the same vein that tiding should exist people should be more empowered to kill them and not be facing a cointoss if they're going to get fucked over if the tider ahelps.

This is a very very very WIP policy but it's there to get the general gist out. I miss the soulful days of an assistant breaking in for insuls and starting a 10m fight where they end up smed over them and would love to see some of this soul return in a ruling. I do not want to stop tiding, I just want to allow departments to beat down on tiders when they’re a little too annoying B)

Toolbox 1v1 to get your ban lifted(inspired by goof somewhat)
Here’s the thing, if the ban isn’t permanent and is for a relatively minor thing I’d be down to occasionally face some people down in a toolbox 1v1. This wouldn’t be expected 100% and only if I/other headmins/maybe admins find the ban funny with the caveat being if they lose their ban gets doubled.
This would not be a free win for them either, I’m somewhat above average and was part of the toolbox tourney-winning team. If there is one thing I can do it’s click.

Why do I want this? I think it’s funny as fuck. If the ban is minor who cares. We as a community need to normalise the “hey what you did was really funny but I still need to ban u for it” talk more. Under few day bans 99.9% of the time should not be represented the way they are. You are not a war criminal being trialled at the hague. You are a clown called thuggy joe who said we’re so barrack one too many times.

This will be more of an offer basis as opposed to being something people can request.

Shift LRP threat a bit higher

Threat feels currently quite low, especially with the high pop we have. Shift it a bit higher but not too much. Change the curve by 0.1 until there’s a better balance.

THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO DO BUT IT WILL BE HARD TO GET 3/3 ON.

-Mentors. I’ve harked on and on about how much I want them and I still do, however, I think it will be very difficult to get other head admins to implement them because of the way there will be a need for a new structure etc. I will try but I cannot promise this.

[Shellton(Mario)]

Can the rules of the duel be decided in a similar way as in john wick?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77nhT8O1DNQ

[Archie700]

How would "If the tider escapes, the department is not authorised to resume conflict until the tider has returned" even work, you would think the department has reason to give chase to a tider which has disturbed their workspace and ran away for it, especially if they stole things from them.

[kieth4]

Can the rules of the duel be decided in a similar way as in john wick?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77nhT8O1DNQ

Although it would be funny as FUCK the rules would probably be decided by whoever is presenting the rules on the admin side. It's a way to prevent some goofball player finding a way to game the system

[kieth4]

How would "If the tider escapes, the department is not authorised to resume conflict until the tider has returned" even work, you would think the department has reason to give chase to a tider which has disturbed their workspace and ran away for it, especially if they stole things from them.

As I said these are my first thoughts on it and those are quite malleable.

The thought I have; if a tider is being a constant annoyance within the department escalating to kill them and potentially skip normal escalation should be fine, which is the goal of the proposition.

This is not a situation where the moment they take a single step out of the department they're safe but more so, 10 minutes have passed you find them in the kitchen so you beat them to death and SM them. Wording will be prone to change to better reflect this when I go to write the actual policy.

In these situations you may obviously rely on normal escalation and beat them up for your shit back or call sec.

[conrad]

Hey Kieth,

Got some questions for you:

Disclaimer: Questions that pertain to admin stuff I'm gonna try to not leak anything from bus by waves hands vagueposting, but I feel they're good to ask anyway based on previous interactions. Mods, feel free to delete my post, but do tell me where I leaked something if I did.

- I might be wrong, but you didn't accomplish a single promise from your first head admin term. Granted, you were the first player headmin, which is pretty fucking impressive, and it could've been a lapse from lack of experience, but one promise that stood out was that you had this posture to "drain the swamp" of inactive admins. Could you elaborate on what's changed that we'd trust you can fulfill your current campaign's ideas?

- You seem to have dedicated about half of your campaign post to a tiding meme. Why so much emphasis on tiding? For those that want to play the game without having to deal with a tider, will admins still have a say when "fun tiding" becomes griefing (i.e.: only fun for one person), or should the bothered player just either take it or leave tg?

- I can see, personally, that tangibly your campaign has two very achievable goals, one which is increasing threat, and one which is reverting a ruling from this term. Do you have anything more ambitious than that?

- Onto less achievable, in my opinion, yet much more interesting goal, how would you implement mentors? Could you elaborate on that? (I mean the staff overhead: training mentors, mentor conduct, etc.) Also, why do you feel mentors are so necessary when an online admin can and does the same thing? Finally, how you liason that with maintainers? (as that will require a code change, no? We don't have mentorhelp)

Now I'd normally be done with questions, but there's something that really bugs me from your last term that I gotta ask:

- There was an incident on the previous term where your headmin team interjected into a ban appeal from namelessfairy. It caused quite a bit of stir since the player had already agreed that the note wasn't harsh, but inacurate. Before the player could answer, your team lifted the note. I can't remember another instance where that happened. nameless dropped a review on your thread, which I think was not good, but it could've ended there. But you then went to their thread, and dropped what was very much perceived as a retaliation review. Should the admins expect you to act like this again?

You are obviously a popular choice for players, and a very strong player vote candidate. If you win, I do hope we can do good for the server.

Thanks and good luck!

[Shaps-cloud]

Can you expand on why you resigned from the admin team following your loss of headmin status? I've kicked this ball around discussing with a few other people about if I'm not seeing this right, but I feel like if you want to advocate for a specific playstyle being acceptable on the servers, especially if you're looking for Terry to be more relaxed on greytiding, that being on the team as an admin and helping with the day to day administration of the servers would be a lot more effective than only being around as a headmin, resigning as soon as you lose power, then trying for the top job again six months later. I mean, as far as your notes say, you didn't finish even a single one of your five training ahelps after Timberpoes ran you through the training program.

I thought you did a decent job with your term, and I know we got along fine during then, but then as soon as your term ended you got caught up in the telling an admin to kys funeral incident which you got a three week ban for after an appeal. You don't administer the servers or kick in at all, you tell an admin to kill themselves as soon as you resign all your responsibilities, why should you be headmin? I mean even the "beat me in 1v1 combat for an unban" thing comes off kinda cheesey considering you only placed a total of 6 bans in 3 different incidents during the course of your time as headmin, who are you to offer to overturn other peoples bans if you mess up in a play PVP battle?

[iain0]

Firstly as a heads up on dynamic issues, there's a lot to be said for the distribution of round start threat often being too low regardless of overall threat. I think there's more at play here than just repeatedly bumping the threat curve.


I have concerns that your takes are always very centered around yourself and your perspective as a fairly robust player. We do certainly have a bunch of players quite happy to resolve their own things by beating other people to pulp IC and largely as long as anyone has a reason for what they're doing, as an admin that's fine. My concern is that you don't seem to give much representation to the rest of the player base ; while bringing your perspective to the group is certainly a key role in being in administration especially headministration we have a lot of players who aren't robust, don't want to be robust, and just want to get on with jobs, gimmicks or interactions, maybe with a little combat thrown in.

I don't see a lot of coverage in your ideas for the rest of these people, for example tiding can be fine, but when pharmacy is swarmed with outsiders to the point the staff can no longer get to a chem machine that doesn't seem very fair, and not every MD is going to want to start a fight (which they will inevitably lose) over it. The med staff may well be happy to help or even let people in, but the hardcore tider philosophy is to just break in and wordlessly take, which comes at the expense of other players and their experience. I personally do not believe "robustness" is a quality players are required to have in order to be able to play the game reasonably.

This also plays into your seeming conflict, in my opinion, over IC resolutions ; you want more things resolved in context rather than administratively, but when the question comes up of /who/ should resolve things IC, with the first port of call being security, you're hard against security being required to deal with anything. So who is going to provide these IC resolutions? And again if you're just presenting your own game play then the answer is clearly you, you will handle your own IC stuff and you don't need no security. But what about those who cant?

So my questions really are how do you see this all playing out for the less PVPer players that we have in the player base that gives them a fair shot at the game without just being constantly bullied and harassed, usually serially by different players? I'm all for IC resolutions and people being deservedly killed, my concerns are around the players who can't implement that, and also the players who only seek out a fight and thus will make that their go-to self antagging round. I'd love to know more about your thoughts on these other aspects as I find your presentations very singularly focussed and I'm not sure if that's simply your whole take or just what you put forward first as closest to home. Your ideas are probably largely fine if every player was you, both because they could survive that environment and because I trust your typically good faith takes IC. But neither of these attributes are universal.




Also the toolbox thing is a terrible idea, if it gets passed I'd probably retire if it was ever called into play in a case I was part of, combat has no place in justice, and continues the concerning trend of PVP robust centricity. Am I supposed to be evaluating if I can toolbox a player while I'm placing a note? It's more okay to get away with certain things provided you can kill an admin? And how many might appeal random things just for the opportunity to get to robust an admin over it, both cathartic for them AND they get the note removed! Why would I want to participate in this? Why would this even be 'fair' to the actual potential wronged party (who is neither me nor the person trying to kill me?)

[Archie700]

Can you please explain your toolbox thing properly, the reason for banning is because the player is supposed to take a time out for what they've done, not because admin feels like it.

Not only does a 1v1 toolbox miss the point, the way you say it it seems like YOU can unilaterally do the 1v1 without the other headmins or the banning admin having an input, which is basically a spit to the face to the system itself.

[kieth4]

Can you expand on why you resigned from the admin team following your loss of headmin status? I've kicked this ball around discussing with a few other people about if I'm not seeing this right, but I feel like if you want to advocate for a specific playstyle being acceptable on the servers, especially if you're looking for Terry to be more relaxed on greytiding, that being on the team as an admin and helping with the day to day administration of the servers would be a lot more effective than only being around as a headmin, resigning as soon as you lose power, then trying for the top job again six months later. I mean, as far as your notes say, you didn't finish even a single one of your five training ahelps after Timberpoes ran you through the training program.

I thought you did a decent job with your term, and I know we got along fine during then, but then as soon as your term ended you got caught up in the telling an admin to kys funeral incident which you got a three week ban for after an appeal. You don't administer the servers or kick in at all, you tell an admin to kill themselves as soon as you resign all your responsibilities, why should you be headmin? I mean even the "beat me in 1v1 combat for an unban" thing comes off kinda cheesey considering you only placed a total of 6 bans in 3 different incidents during the course of your time as headmin, who are you to offer to overturn other peoples bans if you mess up in a play PVP battle?

When I joined the admin team the first thing I said was "I am not going to stay on as a GM after this." I did not want to stay on as a GM because I disagree with the system. Throughout my time as a player I have had plenty of negative experiences with what felt as out of touch GM's and I did not want to become one. Joining and seeing a boatload of shit talk about you does not exactly inspire confidence if I'm being honest and I stuck by those words. You are free to have a look through my tickets and tell me if you think that they are lacking quality and or come off as untrained. I was trained and I did have supervision, I did ask trainers on how they felt and was given positive feedback although the ticket counter was left unchanged (99.9% sure me and timber left this as a joke).

In terms of administrating the server and revamping how greytiding interacts with the round we have many admins who are of the opposite mindset than me. When I initially became a head admin it was not to be an admin but to have real tangible effect to influence the policies and rules of the server.

You can look at my logs and exactly what I said during the church incident too- the appeal explains my rationale with nothing targeted at any admins themselves. I've even maintained a lot of positive relationships with admins after my term. Ultimately, despite this, I do now realise how all of the actions could be perceived but I have at this point made it very clear that I was not acting with any malicious intent.

The 1V1 toolbox thing is a lighthearted way to take a situation that is often treated grimly and try to lighten it up. I made clear that it is for bans that are minor offences to try to make the process of dealing with said bans more light-hearted. I have never seen a playerbase as afraid of a sound as the SS13 players are afraid of the bwoink. My overall goal for this would be making the process for appealing/dealing with these bans more positive for everyone involved. This is a gimmick that will not be forced but occasionally be cathartic. Think of this as a rule 0 case scenario.

I am once again striving to become a head admin to inform policy/rulings and help steer the server that I love in a direction that represent a good chunk of the unsung playerbase.

[Shaps-cloud]

Can you expand on why you resigned from the admin team following your loss of headmin status? I've kicked this ball around discussing with a few other people about if I'm not seeing this right, but I feel like if you want to advocate for a specific playstyle being acceptable on the servers, especially if you're looking for Terry to be more relaxed on greytiding, that being on the team as an admin and helping with the day to day administration of the servers would be a lot more effective than only being around as a headmin, resigning as soon as you lose power, then trying for the top job again six months later. I mean, as far as your notes say, you didn't finish even a single one of your five training ahelps after Timberpoes ran you through the training program.

I thought you did a decent job with your term, and I know we got along fine during then, but then as soon as your term ended you got caught up in the telling an admin to kys funeral incident which you got a three week ban for after an appeal. You don't administer the servers or kick in at all, you tell an admin to kill themselves as soon as you resign all your responsibilities, why should you be headmin? I mean even the "beat me in 1v1 combat for an unban" thing comes off kinda cheesey considering you only placed a total of 6 bans in 3 different incidents during the course of your time as headmin, who are you to offer to overturn other peoples bans if you mess up in a play PVP battle?

When I joined the admin team the first thing I said was "I am not going to stay on as a GM after this." I did not want to stay on as a GM because I disagree with the system. Throughout my time as a player I have had plenty of negative experiences with what felt as out of touch GM's and I did not want to become one. Joining and seeing a boatload of shit talk about you does not exactly inspire confidence if I'm being honest and I stuck by those words. You are free to have a look through my tickets and tell me if you think that they are lacking quality and or come off as untrained. I was trained and I did have supervision, I did ask trainers on how they felt and was given positive feedback although the ticket counter was left unchanged (99.9% sure me and timber left this as a joke).

In terms of administrating the server and revamping how greytiding interacts with the round we have many admins who are of the opposite mindset than me. When I initially became a head admin it was not to be an admin but to have real tangible effect to influence the policies and rules of the server.

You can look at my logs and exactly what I said during the church incident too- the appeal explains my rationale with nothing targeted at any admins themselves. I've even maintained a lot of positive relationships with admins after my term. Ultimately, despite this, I do now realise how all of the actions could be perceived but I have at this point made it very clear that I was not acting with any malicious intent.

The 1V1 toolbox thing is a lighthearted way to take a situation that is often treated grimly and try to lighten it up. I made clear that it is for bans that are minor offences to try to make the process of dealing with said bans more light-hearted. I have never seen a playerbase as afraid of a sound as the SS13 players are afraid of the bwoink. My overall goal for this would be making the process for appealing/dealing with these bans more positive for everyone involved. This is a gimmick that will not be forced but occasionally be cathartic. Think of this as a rule 0 case scenario.

I am once again striving to become a head admin to inform policy/rulings and help steer the server that I love in a direction that represent a good chunk of the unsung playerbase.

So essentially, you're willing to become a part of the machine that handles tickets and occasionally meters out punishment as long as you're in the executive role and don't have to meter out any punishment yourself, because that would hurt your credibility with players?

But when it comes to actually being an admin and punishing people who break the rules and make things worse for everyone else, you're silent.

You don't dole out punishments, you only dole out favors.

[Indie-ana Jones]

To lighten the mood of the admins trying to rip you apart like sharks, I'm personally very happy to see you running again. Having a player perspective I feel is very important in a good team, even if they're extremely unhappy to hear it.

I don't expect your candidate thread to be very cheery, but I don't really think you make your voter margins with the forumgoers for the most part. Just keep trekking on and keep your chin high, and I'd like to think you'll see it through.

[iansdoor]

Well, I have listened to timberpoes opinion of you and it was solid wildcard benefits and disadvantages.

But, I have one question, as I am not a fan of metacords. Would you quash the hidden server on the side if you were voted up for players?

[Jacquerel]

I am also somewhat concerned or confused about the idea of gimmick ban appeal resolutions; who decides when this is an option?
It seems to already be the case that, as there is no reason not to ask for it, every appeal that isn't met with immediate capitulation gets handed over to head admins. Is this just going to be a second thing that head admins have to say yes or no to in every thread, and will that not slow down the appeal process?
If it's only for minor offences, how are you going to manage to provide the "we can resolve this in a trial by combat" after a fair investigation as to whether it is minor enough to be done that way but also do so fast enough that the ban being appealed has not already expired?
If you think something is so trivial that it could be resolved by a 1v1 toolbox duel... what even are the actual cases where you would resolve problems that way and not simply resolve the appeal in the appealants favour?
Is there a case where you would say "Well the admin who applied this note thinks it is correct, and I also think it is entirely factual, but we'll do a duel to remove it anyway"? If yes, how can you expect the admin to feel about that, and if no what is the point?

[kieth4]

Can you expand on why you resigned from the admin team following your loss of headmin status? I've kicked this ball around discussing with a few other people about if I'm not seeing this right, but I feel like if you want to advocate for a specific playstyle being acceptable on the servers, especially if you're looking for Terry to be more relaxed on greytiding, that being on the team as an admin and helping with the day to day administration of the servers would be a lot more effective than only being around as a headmin, resigning as soon as you lose power, then trying for the top job again six months later. I mean, as far as your notes say, you didn't finish even a single one of your five training ahelps after Timberpoes ran you through the training program.

I thought you did a decent job with your term, and I know we got along fine during then, but then as soon as your term ended you got caught up in the telling an admin to kys funeral incident which you got a three week ban for after an appeal. You don't administer the servers or kick in at all, you tell an admin to kill themselves as soon as you resign all your responsibilities, why should you be headmin? I mean even the "beat me in 1v1 combat for an unban" thing comes off kinda cheesey considering you only placed a total of 6 bans in 3 different incidents during the course of your time as headmin, who are you to offer to overturn other peoples bans if you mess up in a play PVP battle?

When I joined the admin team the first thing I said was "I am not going to stay on as a GM after this." I did not want to stay on as a GM because I disagree with the system. Throughout my time as a player I have had plenty of negative experiences with what felt as out of touch GM's and I did not want to become one. Joining and seeing a boatload of shit talk about you does not exactly inspire confidence if I'm being honest and I stuck by those words. You are free to have a look through my tickets and tell me if you think that they are lacking quality and or come off as untrained. I was trained and I did have supervision, I did ask trainers on how they felt and was given positive feedback although the ticket counter was left unchanged (99.9% sure me and timber left this as a joke).

In terms of administrating the server and revamping how greytiding interacts with the round we have many admins who are of the opposite mindset than me. When I initially became a head admin it was not to be an admin but to have real tangible effect to influence the policies and rules of the server.

You can look at my logs and exactly what I said during the church incident too- the appeal explains my rationale with nothing targeted at any admins themselves. I've even maintained a lot of positive relationships with admins after my term. Ultimately, despite this, I do now realise how all of the actions could be perceived but I have at this point made it very clear that I was not acting with any malicious intent.

The 1V1 toolbox thing is a lighthearted way to take a situation that is often treated grimly and try to lighten it up. I made clear that it is for bans that are minor offences to try to make the process of dealing with said bans more light-hearted. I have never seen a playerbase as afraid of a sound as the SS13 players are afraid of the bwoink. My overall goal for this would be making the process for appealing/dealing with these bans more positive for everyone involved. This is a gimmick that will not be forced but occasionally be cathartic. Think of this as a rule 0 case scenario.

I am once again striving to become a head admin to inform policy/rulings and help steer the server that I love in a direction that represent a good chunk of the unsung playerbase.

So essentially, you're willing to become a part of the machine that handles tickets and occasionally meters out punishment as long as you're in the executive role and don't have to meter out any punishment yourself, because that would hurt your credibility with players?

But when it comes to actually being an admin and punishing people who break the rules and make things worse for everyone else, you're silent.

You don't dole out punishments, you only dole out favors.

I am specifically running for headmin as a means to an end to accomplish my goals which the aforementioned post mentions. As an admin, I do not get the opportunity to push out policies and rules. This has nothing to do with my "credibility with players", I simply want to change the game for the better.

I have been honest with my intentions throughout. I do not often feel like much of the serverbase is represented and I seek to change that.

What favours am I doling out here?

[Timberpoes]

As one of the two people who can give an honest review of how they were within the headmin team...

Kieth was a good co-headmin.

He participated in everything headmin. Policy. Appeals. Some very difficult internal affairs investigations. Training and recruitment. He was very easy to work with and was active the entire way through. He grew restless when policy and appeals stacked up and was regularly pushing to churn through them. And when required to step up and put in effort above and beyond, he did so willingly.

As for how things were outside of the headmin ivory tower? Well, it looks like the admin team themselves have that covered so I'll let their views and experiences speak for themselves.

[fenn]

It's nice to see you running again!

Much like “being in place xyz makes you valid to get blasted” the idea behind this would be that, “When committing action xyz(need to figure out what the actual threshold would be, this would be a conversation to be had with other headmins)...

Before the conversation with the other headmins, what do you personally think this threshold should be?

[kieth4]

Hey Kieth,

Got some questions for you:

Disclaimer: Questions that pertain to admin stuff I'm gonna try to not leak anything from bus by waves hands vagueposting, but I feel they're good to ask anyway based on previous interactions. Mods, feel free to delete my post, but do tell me where I leaked something if I did.

- I might be wrong, but you didn't accomplish a single promise from your first head admin term. Granted, you were the first player headmin, which is pretty fucking impressive, and it could've been a lapse from lack of experience, but one promise that stood out was that you had this posture to "drain the swamp" of inactive admins. Could you elaborate on what's changed that we'd trust you can fulfill your current campaign's ideas?

In regards to this I did demote some inactive admins, it coincided with the swap over of terms as it was done near the end there. The problem I faced was the 3 different definitions we had for inactivity- I was for example way more strict in what I wanted as opposed to the other two head admins so I had to compromise.

I made caves allowing for admins to respond if they were going to get their inactivity up and those who did not respond/did not want to got demoted. Those who wanted to continue were told that they would need to raise activity and the next time they were caved for inactivity they would be demoted. These caves were up for quite a while to allow the admins with time to respond.

I should have gone for this earlier in the term but I found myself caught up in other things internally for a long while before I could make a move on this.

If my memory serves me correctly I was involved with these:

Spoiler:

This was after allowing the caves to stay up for a little while. Would I have wanted to get rid of more admins? Yes. Would the circumstances have allowed me to? No. I think that's a very important thing to bring up about the head admin triumvirate, you can only do as much as the other two allow you.

I ran on the main promise of keeping tiding alive and well which it is.

In terms of fulfilling the current promises, I hope that with the support of the other head admins I will be able to achieve them.

- You seem to have dedicated about half of your campaign post to a tiding meme. Why so much emphasis on tiding? For those that want to play the game without having to deal with a tider, will admins still have a say when "fun tiding" becomes griefing (i.e.: only fun for one person), or should the bothered player just either take it or leave tg?

I am a supporter of tiding, yes. But the idea of the proposed policy would be to allow people in departments to tangibly be able to deal with tiders IC without having to get admins involved if they so wish to. I want a codified ruling that lets people SM an extra annoying tider. Back in ye olden days it was the norm.

If the tiders cross our very clearly defined lines, they may still be dealt with administratively. In my eyes tiding and LRP go hand in hand. So in terms of wanting an experience with no tiding I highly recommend MRP, I've played a few rounds on it recently and the shifts have been much calmer.

- I can see, personally, that tangibly your campaign has two very achievable goals, one which is increasing threat, and one which is reverting a ruling from this term. Do you have anything more ambitious than that?

I picked goals which I felt could be achieved/negotiate a compromise with the other head admins. Even those presented might be hard depending on who wins so In reality I do not have much more to promise but instead would like try to get these out first.

- Onto less achievable, in my opinion, yet much more interesting goal, how would you implement mentors? Could you elaborate on that? (I mean the staff overhead: training mentors, mentor conduct, etc.) Also, why do you feel mentors are so necessary when an online admin can and does the same thing? Finally, how you liason that with maintainers? (as that will require a code change, no? We don't have mentorhelp)

Mentors as a system would require a lot of discussion with the other head admins, I know for a fact that timber 100% will not agree with it (he disagreed our last term) but I will try to throw out some ideas on how I envision it.

In terms of overseeing mentors I envision a role for admins who would like to be involved. This would involve; accepting/denying mentor applications against a set of standards determined by the head admins and dealing with complaints regarding mentors. I do not forsee this being too intensive. I think training, if needed, could be done in a group as mentoring itself is more of a casual response to people asking questions.

Before any code changes need to pushed it needs to be greenlit from the head admin side but many years ago when I first ran a maintainer said that if the head admins managed to approve a system they would work with them to get it merged.

Now I'd normally be done with questions, but there's something that really bugs me from your last term that I gotta ask:

- There was an incident on the previous term where your headmin team interjected into a ban appeal from namelessfairy. It caused quite a bit of stir since the player had already agreed that the note wasn't harsh, but inacurate. Before the player could answer, your team lifted the note. I can't remember another instance where that happened. nameless dropped a review on your thread, which I think was not good, and it could've ended there. But you then went to their thread, and dropped what was very much perceived as a retaliation review. Should the admins expect you to act like this again?

If I see a punishment that is not justified I will seek to get it removed/ammended. As for the nature of my admin review I stand by it, it was a reaction to the way they acted around that note as opposed to a personal conflict.

You are obviously a popular choice for players, and a very strong player vote candidate. If you win, I do hope we can do good for the server.

Thanks and good luck!

Thank you.

[Timberpoes]

Regarding my opposition to mentors:

The end goal that mentors accomplish - sharing knowledge and experience with players and having a way players can find help with gameplay questions - is fine.

The implementation of an additional tier of quasi-admins to do it is the part I oppose. Almost all solutions people come up with involve an additional tier of quasi-admins.

Just off the top of my head without any thought at all cuz quasi-admin mentors are dumb, headmins could be spreading the message that ahelp is for more than just rule breaks but can include gameplay questions too. Headmins could be encouraging the admin team to take gameplay ahelps, create a new admin channel dedicated to gameplay questions and finding subject matter expert admins within the team that can answer questions. Or remind admins they can read the wiki to answer questions. Or code dive to find out answers.

These tools can be fed back into the wiki contributors to improve existing guides and clarify points of confusion players have.

"I want to implement mentors" is putting the cart before the horse. You don't want to implement mentors. You want to make it so that players with gameplay questions are able to highlight they need help, feel comfortable asking for that help and can receive that help.

Implementing mentors is merely one of many possible ways to do what you want. If a mentor system is a non-starter, then find another way to get done what you want.

[celularLAmp]

I associate kieth with the most fun ive had playing TG and the time that hte game was the least stale.

also anytime you ask admins questions they get mad so mentor system is a good idea imo.

[kieth4]

Regarding my opposition to mentors:

The end goal that mentors accomplish - sharing knowledge and experience with players and having a way players can find help with gameplay questions - is fine.

The implementation of an additional tier of quasi-admins to do it is the part I oppose. Almost all solutions people come up with involve an additional tier of quasi-admins.

Just off the top of my head without any thought at all cuz quasi-admin mentors are dumb, headmins could be spreading the message that ahelp is for more than just rule breaks but can include gameplay questions too. Headmins could be encouraging the admin team to take gameplay ahelps, create a new admin channel dedicated to gameplay questions and finding subject matter expert admins within the team that can answer questions. Or remind admins they can read the wiki to answer questions. Or code dive to find out answers.

These tools can be fed back into the wiki contributors to improve existing guides and clarify points of confusion players have.

"I want to implement mentors" is putting the cart before the horse. You don't want to implement mentors. You want to make it so that players with gameplay questions are able to highlight they need help, feel comfortable asking for that help and can receive that help.

Implementing mentors is merely one of many possible ways to do what you want. If a mentor system is a non-starter, then find another way to get done what you want.

Mentors work well on other servers. Having it tied inside of the actual game is also beneficial. Putting knowledge in places like the discord and the wiki has limited reach. Although admins do definitely have a large pool of knowledge the huge pool of untapped player knowledge of people who do not want to be admins/cannot become is much bigger and more imense. The initial set up might be difficult, but I view the pay off as a long term benefit. This knowledge is what I want to make accessible. I do no want mentors to conflict with admins or exist in a quasi-admin state, I just want them inside the game able to answer questions for people.

[Timberpoes]

Would the huge pool of untapped player knowledge not be better exercised with RP instead of making a new layer of definitely-not-admins?

Is perchance a reason it's currently untapped because we don't have enough people in-game actually RPing with and teaching eachother how to do things?

Possibly some of our most experienced players being too busy taking advantage of new players by tiding them out of the game with frustration rather than helping make them nice and robust so they can produce more stuff to steal in the future?

Just spitballing.

Incentivising players to spend time teaching and helping eachother out IC is a way better solution. When I first started playing I learned everything IC by players noticing I was new and clueless and teaching me how everything worked from inside the game.

Maybe we should be recognising and rewarding our best players for the work they do to help out others IC in the spirit of low and medium roleplay, so not only can we exploit that untapped vein of player knowledge but do so in the most SS13 way?

[conrad]

Thanks for addressing my line of inquiry, but I feel that one question in particular was left unanswered.

- I might be wrong, but you didn't accomplish a single promise from your first head admin term. Granted, you were the first player headmin, which is pretty fucking impressive, and it could've been a lapse from lack of experience, but one promise that stood out was that you had this posture to "drain the swamp" of inactive admins. Could you elaborate on what's changed that we'd trust you can fulfill your current campaign's ideas?

In regards to this I did demote some inactive admins, it coincided with the swap over of terms as it was done near the end there. The problem I faced was the 3 different definitions we had for inactivity- I was for example way more strict in what I wanted as opposed to the other two head admins so I had to compromise.

I made caves allowing for admins to respond if they were going to get their inactivity up and those who did not respond/did not want to got demoted. Those who wanted to continue were told that they would need to raise activity and the next time they were caved for inactivity they would be demoted. These caves were up for quite a while to allow the admins with time to respond.

I should have gone for this earlier in the term but I found myself caught up in other things internally for a long while before I could make a move on this.

If my memory serves me correctly I was involved with these:

Spoiler:

This was after allowing the caves to stay up for a little while. Would I have wanted to get rid of more admins? Yes. Would the circumstances have allowed me to? No. I think that's a very important thing to bring up about the head admin triumvirate, you can only do as much as the other two allow you.

I ran on the main promise of keeping tiding alive and well which it is.

In terms of fulfilling the current promises, I hope that with the support of the other head admins I will be able to achieve them.

My point was less about the "draining the swamp" bit, that was an example. And yes, deadminning for inactivity happens every term, so Fikou adressing those indicates it was done in the handover, which is not what I believe you promised. You adressed that though, so at least there's that.

I wanted to ask, if you could elaborate, how we could trust you to deliver on those ideas. Do you have examples of something that you promised on your first term that was accomplished?

[kieth4]

Firstly as a heads up on dynamic issues, there's a lot to be said for the distribution of round start threat often being too low regardless of overall threat. I think there's more at play here than just repeatedly bumping the threat curve.


I have concerns that your takes are always very centered around yourself and your perspective as a fairly robust player. We do certainly have a bunch of players quite happy to resolve their own things by beating other people to pulp IC and largely as long as anyone has a reason for what they're doing, as an admin that's fine. My concern is that you don't seem to give much representation to the rest of the player base ; while bringing your perspective to the group is certainly a key role in being in administration especially headministration we have a lot of players who aren't robust, don't want to be robust, and just want to get on with jobs, gimmicks or interactions, maybe with a little combat thrown in.

I don't see a lot of coverage in your ideas for the rest of these people, for example tiding can be fine, but when pharmacy is swarmed with outsiders to the point the staff can no longer get to a chem machine that doesn't seem very fair, and not every MD is going to want to start a fight (which they will inevitably lose) over it. The med staff may well be happy to help or even let people in, but the hardcore tider philosophy is to just break in and wordlessly take, which comes at the expense of other players and their experience. I personally do not believe "robustness" is a quality players are required to have in order to be able to play the game reasonably.

This also plays into your seeming conflict, in my opinion, over IC resolutions ; you want more things resolved in context rather than administratively, but when the question comes up of /who/ should resolve things IC, with the first port of call being security, you're hard against security being required to deal with anything. So who is going to provide these IC resolutions? And again if you're just presenting your own game play then the answer is clearly you, you will handle your own IC stuff and you don't need no security. But what about those who cant?

So my questions really are how do you see this all playing out for the less PVPer players that we have in the player base that gives them a fair shot at the game without just being constantly bullied and harassed, usually serially by different players? I'm all for IC resolutions and people being deservedly killed, my concerns are around the players who can't implement that, and also the players who only seek out a fight and thus will make that their go-to self antagging round. I'd love to know more about your thoughts on these other aspects as I find your presentations very singularly focussed and I'm not sure if that's simply your whole take or just what you put forward first as closest to home. Your ideas are probably largely fine if every player was you, both because they could survive that environment and because I trust your typically good faith takes IC. But neither of these attributes are universal.

Also the toolbox thing is a terrible idea, if it gets passed I'd probably retire if it was ever called into play in a case I was part of, combat has no place in justice, and continues the concerning trend of PVP robust centricity. Am I supposed to be evaluating if I can toolbox a player while I'm placing a note? It's more okay to get away with certain things provided you can kill an admin? And how many might appeal random things just for the opportunity to get to robust an admin over it, both cathartic for them AND they get the note removed! Why would I want to participate in this? Why would this even be 'fair' to the actual potential wronged party (who is neither me nor the person trying to kill me?)

Hello! Thank you for calling me a fairly robust player, my ego can only take so much

My tiding policy would be enacted alongside our existing policy. It will not allow people to get tided more than they currently are but to provide an IC solution that they can rely on when the tiding is not quite admin actionable yet excessive. When I sit down to workshop the policy with the other head admins/community the goal of it will be to allow protection for the engaging departmental player. As an example, shitter x goes to the pharmacy to make meth. The chemist follows up by providing the tider with sufficient warning for them to leave the pharmacy multiple times. They then engage them lethally, in this case the tider would not be permitted to kill or loot them only act in a way that allows them to escape. Even if you are incredibly unrobust the tider has now been driven out and cannot kill you. If they return, you can repeat- or even call the rest of your department for help.

The toolboxing 1v1 unbans would be more of a rule zero exception than an every single ban situation. Light hearted shit as opposed to mandated.

[wesoda25]

I have a few questions relevant to the dynamic of being an admin/player and the transition between the two of them. Respond if you want, just little things I find interesting.

First of all, any anticipated growing pains with respect to returning to the team? Fears, worries, some sort of plan to help aid in the process?

Also, did you notice any change in your outlook before, during, and now after your time as a headmin? Like certain things that you thought were a big deal, but now care about less, and vice versa.

Lastly, any fears of bias? As a revolving door admin myself I find it surprising how quickly and subtly bias can creep over me when I'm in a space full of players vs admins. Do you ever notice that yourself? Any plans to help mitigate it?

thx and good luck

[TheLoLSwat]

Kiethamaniacs have ur back forever and always 🫶

[kieth4]

Can you please explain your toolbox thing properly, the reason for banning is because the player is supposed to take a time out for what they've done, not because admin feels like it.

Not only does a 1v1 toolbox miss the point, the way you say it it seems like YOU can unilaterally do the 1v1 without the other headmins or the banning admin having an input, which is basically a spit to the face to the system itself.

Hello, the intention is for the toolbox 1v1 to exist as a rule 0 kind of thing. Every ban does not need to be treated on the same level of severity.

[kieth4]

Well, I have listened to timberpoes opinion of you and it was solid wildcard benefits and disadvantages.

But, I have one question, as I am not a fan of metacords. Would you quash the hidden server on the side if you were voted up for players?

My actions are not influenced by anyone other than myself.

[kieth4]

I am also somewhat concerned or confused about the idea of gimmick ban appeal resolutions; who decides when this is an option?
It seems to already be the case that, as there is no reason not to ask for it, every appeal that isn't met with immediate capitulation gets handed over to head admins. Is this just going to be a second thing that head admins have to say yes or no to in every thread, and will that not slow down the appeal process?
If it's only for minor offences, how are you going to manage to provide the "we can resolve this in a trial by combat" after a fair investigation as to whether it is minor enough to be done that way but also do so fast enough that the ban being appealed has not already expired?
If you think something is so trivial that it could be resolved by a 1v1 toolbox duel... what even are the actual cases where you would resolve problems that way and not simply resolve the appeal in the appealants favour?
Is there a case where you would say "Well the admin who applied this note thinks it is correct, and I also think it is entirely factual, but we'll do a duel to remove it anyway"? If yes, how can you expect the admin to feel about that, and if no what is the point?

Hia, the goal of this would be a funny rule 0 kind of situation. I would not force this upon anyone.

[kieth4]

It's nice to see you running again!

Much like “being in place xyz makes you valid to get blasted” the idea behind this would be that, “When committing action xyz(need to figure out what the actual threshold would be, this would be a conversation to be had with other headmins)...

Before the conversation with the other headmins, what do you personally think this threshold should be?

Hello *smiles like the joker* [Jared Leto version]

There would be a threshold of 3 warnings when breaking into deeper departmental areas. This policy would not come into play in departmental lobbies, but within the department proper. There are very real reasons to want to be in the lobby and you can just accidentally wander in but getting into deeper areas is a conscious choice that can be very disruptive to the overall workflow. The warnings would only come into effect if the tider was doing something. Sitting there and fluoride staring would not constitute a warnable offence but using the machinery will.

Let me give an example; you are in chemistry. There's a tider standing there staring at you. You cannot warn or attack them. You continue using the machine and nothing comes of it. You finish, they hop on. No problems here.

You are in engi, then, a shitter breaks in. They are trying to steal gloves. You verbalise the warnings; "Leave or we will attack you." they ignore you, "leave or we will attack you" they continue to ignore you. Finally, you give the third and final warning, then if they continue to refuse, you attack then you attack them with a welder and kill them. Even if you are unrobust they are not permitted to kill you so you would force a retreat. If they returned (Without seeking the correct permissions or being let in), you would be authorised to RR them.

The goal here is to empower departments to deal with annoying tiding and codify the ability to deal with them using an ic approach.

[NoxVS]

There would be a threshold of 3 warnings when breaking into deeper departmental areas. This policy would not come into play in departmental lobbies, but within the department proper. There are very real reasons to want to be in the lobby and you can just accidentally wander in but getting into deeper areas is a conscious choice that can be very disruptive to the overall workflow. The warnings would only come into effect if the tider was doing something. Sitting there and fluoride staring would not constitute a warnable offence but using the machinery will.

Let me give an example; you are in chemistry. There's a tider standing there staring at you. You cannot warn or attack them. You continue using the machine and nothing comes of it. You finish, they hop on. No problems here.

You are in engi, then, a shitter breaks in. They are trying to steal gloves. You verbalise the warnings; "Leave or we will attack you." they ignore you, "leave or we will attack you" they continue to ignore you. Finally, you give the third and final warning, then if they continue to refuse, you attack then you attack them with a welder and kill them. Even if you are unrobust they are not permitted to kill you so you would force a retreat. If they returned (Without seeking the correct permissions or being let in), you would be authorised to RR them.

The goal here is to empower departments to deal with annoying tiding and codify the ability to deal with them using an ic approach.

I don't get the chemistry example at all. They are trespassing, they have broken in, and you aren't allowed to do anything to them? Let's say I'm an engineer, I walk in and see an assistant standing next to a pair of insulated gloves. Knowing that assistants do not spontaneously pop into existence in engineering, clearly they have broken in. If I tell them "Leave or we will attack you." Is "nuh uh im not touching anything" a genuine rebuttal?

[kieth4]

Thanks for addressing my line of inquiry, but I feel that one question in particular was left unanswered.

- I might be wrong, but you didn't accomplish a single promise from your first head admin term. Granted, you were the first player headmin, which is pretty fucking impressive, and it could've been a lapse from lack of experience, but one promise that stood out was that you had this posture to "drain the swamp" of inactive admins. Could you elaborate on what's changed that we'd trust you can fulfill your current campaign's ideas?

In regards to this I did demote some inactive admins, it coincided with the swap over of terms as it was done near the end there. The problem I faced was the 3 different definitions we had for inactivity- I was for example way more strict in what I wanted as opposed to the other two head admins so I had to compromise.

I made caves allowing for admins to respond if they were going to get their inactivity up and those who did not respond/did not want to got demoted. Those who wanted to continue were told that they would need to raise activity and the next time they were caved for inactivity they would be demoted. These caves were up for quite a while to allow the admins with time to respond.

I should have gone for this earlier in the term but I found myself caught up in other things internally for a long while before I could make a move on this.

If my memory serves me correctly I was involved with these:

Spoiler:

This was after allowing the caves to stay up for a little while. Would I have wanted to get rid of more admins? Yes. Would the circumstances have allowed me to? No. I think that's a very important thing to bring up about the head admin triumvirate, you can only do as much as the other two allow you.

I ran on the main promise of keeping tiding alive and well which it is.

In terms of fulfilling the current promises, I hope that with the support of the other head admins I will be able to achieve them.

My point was less about the "draining the swamp" bit, that was an example. And yes, deadminning for inactivity happens every term, so Fikou adressing those indicates it was done in the handover, which is not what I believe you promised. You addressed that though, so at least there's that.

I wanted to ask, if you could elaborate, how we could trust you to deliver on those ideas. Do you have examples of something that you promised on your first term that was accomplished?

My promises were as such;

1) KEEP LRP TIDING ALIVE AND WELL. (LRP ONLY) KEEP TIDING DEAD AND BURIED(MRP ONLY)

This was accomplished by generally enforcing a status quo approach to the issue. When conversations were brought up internally I tried to steer them in a way which was fair to tiders. The status quo/no change in my books boils this down as a success. LRP tiding is alive and well, there were no changes in how it functioned and MRP tiding is still as hard as ever to do.

2) A NON-BIASED LOOK AT ALL APPEALS.

The goal of this was a promise that I would try to have a look at appeals with a non-biased lens to ensure that what I labelled as "personal feelings" did not get into the way.

viewtopic.php?p=687164#p687164 Here is an example where we lifted the note after disagreeing with the admins conduct. I am not going to go dig for other examples but I view this as achieving my promise- timber was VERY proactive overall throughout the term in this department too. He was very empowering when it came to these situations in general.

viewtopic.php?f=34&t=34015&p=686513&hil ... 5D#p686513 The nameless appeal you brought up also fits into this example. I felt that at that point the note was being kept for the sake of it than serving any actual purpose so I went and got it removed.

3) CLAMP DOWN ON INACTIVE ADMINS.

Which is also something I feel I approached as well as I could. When I came into the term one of the first things that I had to deal with an in-depth admin investigation which completely swept me off my feet due to the scale of it and coming in halfway, other shit came up, it got pushed back. When I could approach it I did and inactive admins did end up getting demoted.

4) STRIVING FOR THE FUTURE

This was me giving my support for any future/potential ss14 server if that popped up.

5) SUPPORT FOR MENTORS

I gave my support to mentors, the other head admins did not want them. This is my first "failed" promise. You work as a three if the other two disagree you have no foot to stand on.

6)CAMPBELL- THE MARATHON COMPROMISE

Regarding this, I changed my mind. When I interacted with some of the Campbell community it came up that they were happy with what they had and thus I did not want to change it.

These were my promises and I achieved a majority of them.

[kieth4]

Would the huge pool of untapped player knowledge not be better exercised with RP instead of making a new layer of definitely-not-admins?

Is perchance a reason it's currently untapped because we don't have enough people in-game actually RPing with and teaching eachother how to do things?

Possibly some of our most experienced players being too busy taking advantage of new players by tiding them out of the game with frustration rather than helping make them nice and robust so they can produce more stuff to steal in the future?

Just spitballing.

Incentivising players to spend time teaching and helping eachother out IC is a way better solution. When I first started playing I learned everything IC by players noticing I was new and clueless and teaching me how everything worked from inside the game.

Maybe we should be recognising and rewarding our best players for the work they do to help out others IC in the spirit of low and medium roleplay, so not only can we exploit that untapped vein of player knowledge but do so in the most SS13 way?

Mentors are a good way to ensure a large amount of coverage for new players. I have very recently had a round where there were two interns and two large groups of players around each one, to teach them we had to spend a lot of time going through mechanics and dragging them around explaining concepts etc. Even then they were struggling heavily. This is not viable to do every single round as various projects come up, or you may have other commitments appear. Having a centralised place where the person can ask questions, could alleviate a lot of potential issues by providing a revolving door of people to assist them.

Teaching people is 99.9% of the time in the scope of OOC, you're saying things like "Press x button" "Do y thing" so I think it is in the best interests to have an OOC place to discuss these things.

I do not believe that our most experienced players are busy taking advantage of new people- I never really see this, they just often get bogged down with other things they want to do and cannot devote more time past a few rounds to help new players.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Man, toolbox 1v1 to play ban roulette seems like a silly "vote-me!" gimmick and not something that would plausibly be able to happen. Besides, why should people who are better at combat get shorter bans?

[kieth4]

Man, toolbox 1v1 to play ban roulette seems like a silly "vote-me!" gimmick and not something that would plausibly be able to happen. Besides, why should people who are better at combat get shorter bans?

The goal of it is to have a silly rule 0 thing that can be played as a joke. This will not on average cause shorter bans.

[Lizardistaken]

kieth has some good ideas on his platform and always seems to know how to make a round fun for others. +vote

hope you become headmin!

[NoxVS]

There would be a threshold of 3 warnings when breaking into deeper departmental areas. This policy would not come into play in departmental lobbies, but within the department proper. There are very real reasons to want to be in the lobby and you can just accidentally wander in but getting into deeper areas is a conscious choice that can be very disruptive to the overall workflow. The warnings would only come into effect if the tider was doing something. Sitting there and fluoride staring would not constitute a warnable offence but using the machinery will.

Let me give an example; you are in chemistry. There's a tider standing there staring at you. You cannot warn or attack them. You continue using the machine and nothing comes of it. You finish, they hop on. No problems here.

You are in engi, then, a shitter breaks in. They are trying to steal gloves. You verbalise the warnings; "Leave or we will attack you." they ignore you, "leave or we will attack you" they continue to ignore you. Finally, you give the third and final warning, then if they continue to refuse, you attack then you attack them with a welder and kill them. Even if you are unrobust they are not permitted to kill you so you would force a retreat. If they returned (Without seeking the correct permissions or being let in), you would be authorised to RR them.

The goal here is to empower departments to deal with annoying tiding and codify the ability to deal with them using an ic approach.

I don't get the chemistry example at all. They are trespassing, they have broken in, and you aren't allowed to do anything to them? Let's say I'm an engineer, I walk in and see an assistant standing next to a pair of insulated gloves. Knowing that assistants do not spontaneously pop into existence in engineering, clearly they have broken in. If I tell them "Leave or we will attack you." Is "nuh uh im not touching anything" a genuine rebuttal?

Can you respond to this question? I doubt it’s really going to change any votes this late into it, but I still am interested in the answer. I don’t know if I misunderstand it but all I see is you saying it exists to allow people to deal with tiders, only to immediately use it to protect tiders that invoke the “bro im just standing here” rule.

[kieth4]

I have a few questions relevant to the dynamic of being an admin/player and the transition between the two of them. Respond if you want, just little things I find interesting.

First of all, any anticipated growing pains with respect to returning to the team? Fears, worries, some sort of plan to help aid in the process?

Also, did you notice any change in your outlook before, during, and now after your time as a headmin? Like certain things that you thought were a big deal, but now care about less, and vice versa.

Lastly, any fears of bias? As a revolving door admin myself I find it surprising how quickly and subtly bias can creep over me when I'm in a space full of players vs admins. Do you ever notice that yourself? Any plans to help mitigate it?

thx and good luck

Thanks for the question, this has been interesting to think on.

There are no growing pains anticipated, even when I became a head admin the first time it was relatively smooth sailing outside of a few people being dramatic. No one retired, and everything went well, overall the admin team was very accommodating.

My outlook has remained largely the same. During my term, I played a lot and never felt like I left the "player" mindset. I was very lucky to have Timber and mdoubtdul on board and whenever I would spit out something they would help me in making it presentable and read better.

I think my bias is often skewed towards players and this is not something I'm entirely sure on how to tackle but if I win I'll learn to do so!

[iwishforducks]

the idea that having a "bias towards the players" ultimately leads to being a bad headmin/admin is dumb. it's why i like you the most out of all the candidates this cycle, kieth. you did good work last time you were on a seat. the perspective and mindset of a player is really important to have. of course there's always moments where you gotta shoulder the responsibility, but i never felt like you had much trouble with that during your last headmincy.

[kieth4]

Thank you for the votes, sorry if I did not respond to your questions. I did not ignore you I just got tired of responding

[iwishforducks]

he's already burnt out......... man is already headmin-forged