[Optimumtact] Gouty - Failure to investigate thoroughly or uphold rules.

[Gouty]

Byond account and character name: Gouty (Carlos Danger)
Admin: Optimumtact
Time and Server incident occurred: 2018-04-26 06:35 Basil
ROUND ID HERE: 87046 further conversation during 87047

During the round it had become clear that the AI (cacogen/K-9) was completely inactive. It had not responded to any requests (much to many players annoyance) had not spoken or moved its camera. I brought this to the admins attention and was promptly told that the AI was not AFK (I later found out this was because they replied to the ahelp). A while later (after further inactivity from the AI) I asked them if they were sure the AI was not AFK, to which my adminhelp was immediately rejected. The round continued without a player controlling the AI, the AI was killed near the end of the shift as it was not answering requests, or acting to fix sources of harm (such as lethal turrets and plasma floods) and was assumed to be rogue.

Checking back over the logs for 87046 I see no absolutely no activity from the AI.

Following the round I had a rather worrying conversation where the admin stated that they would not take action unless they are ahelped by someone living in game, and insisted that 100% inactivity was a playstyle and not a violation of Rule 5.

Conversations follow:

Spoiler:

PM to-Admins: is the AI AFK? I've not seen them talk all shift and they are just following this roboticist all shift

Admin PM from-Optimumtact: they're not afk

Your ticket has been resolved by an admin. The Adminhelp verb will be returned to you shortly.

//Much later:

PM to-Admins: are you sure they aren't AFK?

- AdminHelp Rejected! -

Your admin help was rejected. The adminhelp verb has been returned to you so that you may try again.

Please try to be calm, clear, and descriptive in admin helps, do not assume the admin has seen any related events, and clearly state the names of anybody you are reporting.

//At the end of the shift:

PM to-Admins: so don't players in important positions (like AI) have an obligation to play the bare minimum?

//Start of 87047

PM to-Admins: I mean you tell me that they weren't AFK, but they did nothing all round, just wondering why you thought that . They also must have had their preference to high as mine was also.

Admin PM from-Optimumtact: because I ahelped them and asked them if they were there and they replied immediately

PM to-Admins: Fair enough, so they were there, but not active? or was screen not showing any of their text or the movement of their camera?

Admin PM from-Optimumtact: All I can tel you isthey replied immediately but they appeared to be following the roboticist all round

PM to-Admins: yeah, they were inactive, so that doesn't come under rule 5 then?

Admin PM from-Optimumtact: I have no proof that they were inactive, you were dead, and not requesting anything of them and they replied immediateyl to my ahelp

PM to-Admins: the whole "minimum effort" thing

Admin PM from-Optimumtact: without an ahelp or complaint from someone who actually tried to get the AI to do something I cannot take any action

PM to-Admins: That seems like an odd statement. You see someone breaking the rules and you you can only take action if someone ahelps it? they carded the AI because it didn't respond, all the time it didn't move its camera, it didn't talk, it didn't interact with everytyhing. It's quite easy to see proof of it you just check the logs surely?

Admin PM from-Optimumtact: I didn't see anyone breaking the rules, I checked if they were present and they responded. I can't force someone to play AI a specific way, if the person who carded the AI want's to make an ahelp I can do something

PM to-Admins: It's not about playing a certain way, its about them playing at all. They might have answered the ahelp but unless my ghost observe and radio was incorrect they weren't there. Put it this way, if that was the captain and the captain hadn't moved or spoken all shift but answered an ahelp, would you have taken action?

Admin PM from-Optimumtact: not unless someone ingame ahelped it

PM to-Admins: For real? You will only take action on shit if someone ahelps it? You see someone breaking the rules.. say metacomming, and you wont take action. that is beyond the point, I did ahelp it. I really can't see how this is not a Rule 5. issue Players in a head of staff, AI/Silicon role, or a team conversion role require a minimum amount of effort

Admin PM from-Optimumtact: No, thats not what I said at all, you're just extending my comment to every possible situation rather than the hypothetical you raised. Also you ahelped it after you were dead. If you have a problem with this you can raise it with the headmins or make an admin complaint, but I'm not interested in any further back and forth on this.

//they were right my comment was a bit reductio ad absurdum, but the point remains they said they would not act on someone breaking rules "unless someone ingame ahelped it"

PM to-Admins: How would a player know if an AI is AFK?

Admin PM from-Optimumtact: O

Admin PM from-Optimumtact: *sorry, pushed the wrong button. I've told you to stop on this line of question, please refrain from further ahelps on this matter, you know where you can go to escalate this further

PM to-Admins: Fair enough

[oranges]

You ahelped about the AI being AFK, I checked and they weren't, which was why I disregarded your second ahelp.

In the conversation in the next round I expressed that I would not punish an AI for playing passively unless someone actually involved in the round ahelped about it disregarding a lawful requested order.

I don't usually involve myself in other peoples affairs unless someone involved in the matter in an IC form wants something done. I prefer to let incidents play out with as minimal admin interference as possible.

you then chose to take the conversation in an unproductive direction by reducing my explanation to an absurdity and I ended the conversation.

As far as I'm concerned there's nothing actionable here, but ultimately that is for the headmins to decide.

[Gouty]

In the conversation in the next round I expressed that I would not punish an AI for playing passively unless someone actually involved in the round ahelped about it disregarding a lawful requested order.

The issue wasn't that they were "playing passively" it's that they weren't playing at all, something that is, in important positions, against the rules.

I don't usually involve myself in other peoples affairs unless someone involved in the matter in an IC form wants something done. I prefer to let incidents play out with as minimal admin interference as possible.

You stated in the conversation that you wouldn't take action unless it was from a player affected in game. Many people during the round complained ICly that the AI was not obeying commands but probably assumed it was for one of the many IC reasons (e.g. dead, malf, subverted, different lawset, busy) but had no way to know. Some people may also have not been aware it was ahelpable. I brought it to your attention, twice, and you refused to do anything about it.

you then chose to take the conversation in an unproductive direction by reducing my explanation to an absurdity

Yeah and I put that in my account of the conversation, my point still stands though.

As far as I'm concerned there's nothing actionable here, but ultimately that is for the headmins to decide.

What a redundant statement

[imblyings]

we have no way of knowing if a player had something happen irl and forgot to log out, or if they are sleepy, or drunk, or even nervous

other players are also capable of making new AIs

all in all it's not a serious infraction by the AI and oranges did nothing wrong

[Gouty]

we have no way of knowing if a player had something happen irl and forgot to log out, or if they are sleepy, or drunk, or even nervous

That's all very well and good, but if they aren't moving, and they haven't pressed any buttons, and they haven't said anything ALL SHIFT I think you can say they aren't there. In any case, in those situations do you not ask them if they are able to play, and if they are not offer them up to ghosts?

other players are also capable of making new AIs

I don't know what that has to do with this situation, it was a roundstart AI there were no others.

all in all it's not a serious infraction by the AI and oranges did nothing wrong

That's 2 seperate statements, you start by saying it's not a serious infraction, which I agree with. Then you contradict yourself and say he did nothing wrong, which I disagree with.

I misread that, I thought you were talking about Oranges both times. The AI was an important position and put in no effort, breaking rule 5, it also sounds like they then lied to the admins about it.

[imblyings]

A person can reply, startled out of their x y z reason to be doing nothing because of the adminhelp noise, reply to the red name who can cut their fun away forever, then gradually feel unable to do anything else. It wouldn't be the first time a player has joined the game only to lose interest or desire to play.

Admins can offer AI's up for ghosts, it is not something they are punished or talked to for if they don't.

Not having an AI isn't crippling to a round either. Doors can be hacked, floods can be stopped manually, turrets can be disabled with effort. Borgs can be created with provide much of the same functionality locally, and AI's can be created so any absence of an active AI player doesn't impact the round too much.

chill out gouty, nothing seriously bad happened don't make it out like something did

[Gouty]

A person can reply, startled out of their x y z reason to be doing nothing because of the adminhelp noise, reply to the red name who can cut their fun away forever, then gradually feel unable to do anything else. It wouldn't be the first time a player has joined the game only to lose interest or desire to play.

They didn't loose their interest during the round, they didn't take part at all. I understand real life happens, but I thought the idea is that if you can't play then you tell the admins so they can act accordingly.

chill out gouty, nothing seriously bad happened don't make it out like something did

I'm chill, please don't imply I'm not, I've already said I don't think it's a serious infraction in either case (the AI or the Admin) but the admin was of the opinion that no rule was broken, if that is the case and this is the official stance what is the point in including AI's in Rule 5?

[imblyings]

if it wasn't a serious infraction by oranges, and oranges did nothing wrong, then why is there a complaint

'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.

'Constant logging out or going afk '

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

if oranges pursued a valid course of action and the rules as properly interpreted don't define this as any sort of actionable infraction why does this thread exist

[kevinz000]

taking the game too seriously is unhealthy
t. guy who takes the game too seriously

[Gouty]

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.

'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

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.

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?

[imblyings]

>because of the impact to round progression.

As amply explained in anticipation of this of point, there exist multiple IC ways to go about things when you don't have an electronic door opener and gas pipe turn offer.

>include not logging out/going AFK at or near round start due to the importance of those roles within the round for progression.

Yes Gouty, it says that very specifically because the intent was to nab people who logged out at or near roundstart, hence the admin notification listing those who do that after a while has passed since roundstart. Admins don't and cannot force people to play the game otherwise, so we don't mind when they log out or go afk after.

>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?

oranges did leave a note because it happened next round.

please stop this gouty, nothing actionable happened, certainly nothing worthy of this thread existing.

[Arianya]

This is second hand from oranges, but I believe a note was placed later on the AI when it disconnected. Just seemed relevant.

[Armhulen]

I think oranges handled this alright, he could have given more feedback but he doesn't have to. not actionable unless another head admin wants to reopen this and say a few more words i'll leave it just locked but not moved until then