imblyings wrote:if it wasn't a serious infraction by oranges, and oranges did nothing wrong, then why is there a complaint
I didn't say they did nothing wrong, that's the point of the thread, I think they could have intervened earlier when it was mentioned, even if it was asking them not to break rule 5 in future, and/or noting them so that other admins know that they have already done it once before.
imblyings wrote:'generally include not logging out/going AFK at or near round start'
oranges checked to see if the AI was afk and it's reasonable to assume the later inaction when AI intervention could've been handy was well past round-start. In either case the main rules only list not logging out, it's not like the rules page directs players to read the long list of precedents upon pain of ban, they merely ask the player to read the main rules which only mention not logging out, and not going afk.
Ok, so let's break this down as part of the complete Rule 5 precedents
Rule 5 precedents wrote:Minimum levels of effort for heads of staff, silicon roles, and team antagonist generally include not logging out/going AFK at or near round start due to the importance of those roles within the round for progression. Constant logging out or going afk may be given warnings by admins, and may progress to jobbans.
The reason why it says GENERALLY includes not logging out/going AFK is because of the impact to round progression. The end result of someone not playing and someone logging out/going AFK in terms of impact to the round is exactly the same(
arguably it's worse because you get no IC indication on examine that they are afk). I don't see how you can get make less effort than doing absolutely nothing, so they were in clear violation of the rules.
imblyings wrote:any admin action is done when it is repeated behaviour and in practice, usually when several admins notice it and start mentioning it to each other, you should know this, so unless this guy was notorious amongst admins for being inactive, oranges doing nothing was a valid course of action
Actually that wasn't my experience, I might have asked other admins what interactions they had with a player if they did something particularly egregious, but I wouldn't for minor things.
Its a bad way to know if someone is a repeat offender, especially for minor infractions which aren't necessarily conversation worthy but are infractions nonetheless. I added notes, and the notes of others were what influenced the actions taken against the player, not the tidbits gained from informal conversation with fellow admins.
How will the player know not to do it in future if they aren't spoken to, and how will fellow admins know if it is repeat behaviour unless the behaviour is noted?