/tg/Station 13

When and where this incident occured (Game Server, forums, Discord): Forums
Byond account and character name OR Discord name: kieth4
Admin:Thunder12345

Recently I was banned from head roles for a week. Naturally I appealed the next day. If the appeal had been denied I would have had no issue with it and would have moved on without much thought. Instead the banning admin ,thunder, decided to for some reason ignore the appeal until the ban had already expired. He should have been aware of this appeal before the ban itself expired so I don't accept this as an excuse. After the ban he placed expired he replied with a response that was clearly not the accumalated efforts of 6 days(The amount it took him to respond). Again, I have no issue with the response the issue is the time it took to provide it. The appeal was denied but it was denied in such a way that could have been given any time during that period basically being "Hi, you broke the rules this ban remains.". This feels like a deliberate attempt to wait out the ban to avoid any actual conversation about it/ just straight up ignoring the appeal for the duration of it. Thunder was also active during this period playing many rounds so it's not like he was geniuenly incapaciated or unable to respond which if was the case I would once again have no issue with it. This is an example of this admin just ignoring the appeal until after the ban was over. I believe that this is poor admin conduct as admins should reply to an appeal during the period that the ban is live if they are not busy and not just ignore it straight up. Of course, if they are busy no pressure. As I mentioned previously thunder was able to as he has been playing during this time.

This feels super gamey and a way to avoid having a converstaion with the apeal about the ban and just denying it after it has already expired.


Logs of rounds where thunder played:
https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/154 ... under12345
https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/154 ... under12345
https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/154 ... under12345
https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/154 ... under12345
https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/154 ... under12345
https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/154 ... under12345
https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/154 ... under12345
https://scrubby.melonmesa.com/round/154 ... under12345

Linking the appeal in question

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=28308

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 65#p586754

I'm pretty sure this falls under "banning conduct".

Vekter wrote:https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 65#p586754

I'm pretty sure this falls under "banning conduct".

It's not their banning conduct though, it's their appeal conduct. The admin complaint is only very loosely related to ban itself.

I forgot it was there, I said so in my response, that is what happened and there is no conspiracy against you. You could also have helped your own situation by, you know, actually chasing it up when you didn't hear anything, rather than intentionally keeping quiet because you've already decided you're getting an admin complaint out of it.



https://discord.com/channels/3268221442 ... 8965033994

He said that on the day it was expiring


In fact here's a post from 1/16, 2 days after the ban, that calls into question the accusation that he was "intentionally keeping quiet because he already decided he's getting an admin complaint out of it"

(Timezones may mean it wasn't exactly 2 days later)

Thunder I literally pinged you in adminbus on the 19th about it and you said you'd get around to it, because kieth4 thought it was a pisstake there was no reply.

While Kieth4 didn't know I did this, I don't think we should be expecting players to have to leap hurdles just to get a reply from the admin who banned them, admins should have the decency to reply to their own appeal, especially when they are consciously aware of it.

How do you 'forget it's there' like you claim when I ping you in adminbus about it anyways?

I should add this from his peanut thread - Apparently he fucking did try to chase it up in OOC chat ingame.

kieth4 wrote:This will be an admin complaint when the thread gets locked. I appreciate he said sorry but this is not good admin conduct. I have no issue with the appeal itself being denied. It was left a week however whilst he played in game. I even attempted to talk to him in occ a few times. (he didn't respond to any of my messages shocking). This is a clear cut example of him ignoring it for some reason until it had already expired.

Here is an example after thunder did ick ock on a cult round.

08:43:11 OOC Kieth4/(Harvester (118)) "ban for 7 days" (88, 104, 2) Medbay Central
08:43:13 OOC LEDDriver/(Harvester (929)) "its ok you are admin" (75, 82, 2) Abandoned Medbay
08:43:43 OOC Tlaltecuhtli/(Brick Carr) "and extend the ban until thunder esponds"

The messages here are the quickest and first example I can find but it is a clear reference to the ban appeal.

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28342

I don't want to sound like an asshole (nor do I want to justify Thunder forgetting about the appeal), but if you're in the Discord you are 100% welcome to either ping the admin that banned you or ping supportmin for further assistance.

Vekter wrote:I don't want to sound like an asshole (nor do I want to justify Thunder forgetting about the appeal), but if you're in the Discord you are 100% welcome to either ping the admin that banned you or ping supportmin for further assistance.

I tried to talk to him in OCC he ignored me every time I tried to converse. Some of the people I'm friends with who knew about the ban asked him in occ too. I think the evidence in this thread supports that he knew too.

pugie wrote:Thunder I literally pinged you in adminbus on the 19th about it and you said you'd get around to it, because kieth4 thought it was a pisstake there was no reply.

While Kieth4 didn't know I did this, I don't think we should be expecting players to have to leap hurdles just to get a reply from the admin who banned them, admins should have the decency to reply to their own appeal, especially when they are consciously aware of it.

How do you 'forget it's there' like you claim when I ping you in adminbus about it anyways?

Because it was the start of semester and it went back out of my mind again among all the important IRL things going on at the same time.

kieth4 wrote:

Vekter wrote:I don't want to sound like an asshole (nor do I want to justify Thunder forgetting about the appeal), but if you're in the Discord you are 100% welcome to either ping the admin that banned you or ping supportmin for further assistance.

I tried to talk to him in OCC he ignored me every time I tried to converse. Some of the people I'm friends with who knew about the ban asked him in occ too. I think the evidence in this thread supports that he knew too.

Well yeah, if I'm playing I'm probably not reading every single OOC message just in case someone is trying to get my attention, as I would assume if they actually had something to say I'd get a ping on discord.

Thunder11 wrote:

pugie wrote:Thunder I literally pinged you in adminbus on the 19th about it and you said you'd get around to it, because kieth4 thought it was a pisstake there was no reply.

While Kieth4 didn't know I did this, I don't think we should be expecting players to have to leap hurdles just to get a reply from the admin who banned them, admins should have the decency to reply to their own appeal, especially when they are consciously aware of it.

How do you 'forget it's there' like you claim when I ping you in adminbus about it anyways?

Because it was the start of semester and it went back out of my mind again among all the important IRL things going on at the same time.

kieth4 wrote:

Vekter wrote:I don't want to sound like an asshole (nor do I want to justify Thunder forgetting about the appeal), but if you're in the Discord you are 100% welcome to either ping the admin that banned you or ping supportmin for further assistance.

I tried to talk to him in OCC he ignored me every time I tried to converse. Some of the people I'm friends with who knew about the ban asked him in occ too. I think the evidence in this thread supports that he knew too.

Well yeah, if I'm playing I'm probably not reading every single OOC message just in case someone is trying to get my attention, as I would assume if they actually had something to say I'd get a ping on discord.

This seems simply like fabircation. You're too busy to reply to an appeal yet not too busy to play multiple rounds of ss13 is this important irl stuff too? You are also saying that you missed multiple occ messages over these rounds. Even when a fellow admin reminded you you "forgot". You were aware of it and simply ignored it as all evidence suggests you were made aware in multiple different places, whilst not being busy irl as if you were you wouldn't have gamed ss13.

You also say "ping in discord" yet what says you won't "forget" like you forgot when pinged in adminbus?

pugie wrote:I don't think we should be expecting players to have to leap hurdles just to get a reply from the admin who banned them

Pinging someone in discord is not "leaping through hurdles."

pugie wrote:Admins should have the decency to reply to their own appeal, especially when they are consciously aware of it.
How do you 'forget it's there' like you claim when I ping you in adminbus about it anyways?

Leaping through hurdles is meeting your unreasonable expectations for an administrator.

Staff have lives outside of the game, and other assorted responsibilities. It is unreasonable to assume a flawless memory out of any person at any given time, but you're acting as if it is impossible for something like that to slip someone's mind the same time college is back in full swing.

Thunder has not had a complaint in 2 years, nor a successful complaint in 4 years. It is disingenuous and unprofessional for you to imply, right off the bat, that Thunder is acting in bad faith, especially as a fellow member of staff.

This reads more like an attack on one of your co-workers, rather than a good faith post in a complaint thread by another member of staff.

My thoughts on the complaint itself:
It would be a strange hill to die on for a member of staff to try and pull an unprofessional stunt (they're being accused of) over something as small as a week role-ban.

uh huh this is an admin complaint and what I said was a genuine point to bring up.

Call it an attack on their character or whatever all you like but it really isn't much to ask in my eyes for an admin to respond to an appeal for a week long ban within a week, that's like the bare minimum of adminning and if you wanna contest that go ahead. That's not unreasonable expectations at all, they said they'd get around to responding to the appeal and they did... when the ban expired which is lame, if you think that my expectations are unreasonable you are a fool. Also if jannies are referred to as coworkers ever again in my presence I'm gonna vomit.

Sign up for a volunteer position, you agree to do the bare minimum.

otherwise, you can volunteer yourself for the exit door

MrAlphonzo wrote: Staff have lives outside of the game, and other assorted responsibilities.

This defense feels flawed as Thunder was directly playing the game actively for multiple rounds up to and during the ban appeal, which directly correlates to multiple hours playing the game, and never responded during this time period, as shown with the spoilered image.

saprasam wrote:

MrAlphonzo wrote: Staff have lives outside of the game, and other assorted responsibilities.

This defense feels flawed as Thunder was directly playing the game actively for multiple rounds up to and during the ban appeal, which directly correlates to multiple hours playing the game, and never responded during this time period, as shown with the spoilered image.

Spoiler:

You're mistaking my defense and interpreting it as saying Thunder did nothing wrong.

I'm stating that the accusations from Pugie and the complainer that Thunder was operating in bad faith, ala waiting for the ban to expire, are inaccurate. Forgetting about an appeal, when college has just started, and you want to play your favorite space vidya game to wind down, is entirely plausible, and far, FAR, FAR more reasonable than assuming a long-term member of staff would try to cheat the system over something so phenomenally minor.

Speculating whether an administrator is particularly focused on their responsibilities is an entirely valid point of contention that I am not going to weigh in on one way or another, but outright accusing an administrator of acting in bad faith right out the gate is unreasonable.

In short, jumping to some sort of admin conspiracy-like conclusion is downright childish, especially when that accusation comes from another member of staff, who should know better.

MrAlphonzo wrote:snop
Speculating whether an administrator is particularly focused on their responsibilities is an entirely valid point of contention that I am not going to weigh in on one way or another, but outright accusing an administrator of acting in bad faith right out the gate is unreasonable.
snop

My main point isn't that they were acting out of bad faith, it's more that they have the potential to not be focused on their responsibilities as an administrator.

MrAlphonzo wrote:

saprasam wrote:

MrAlphonzo wrote: Staff have lives outside of the game, and other assorted responsibilities.

This defense feels flawed as Thunder was directly playing the game actively for multiple rounds up to and during the ban appeal, which directly correlates to multiple hours playing the game, and never responded during this time period, as shown with the spoilered image.

Spoiler:

You're mistaking my defense and interpreting it as saying Thunder did nothing wrong.

I'm stating that the accusations from Pugie and the complainer that Thunder was operating in bad faith, ala waiting for the ban to expire, are inaccurate. Forgetting about an appeal, when college has just started, and you want to play your favorite space vidya game to wind down, is entirely plausible, and far, FAR, FAR more reasonable than assuming a long-term member of staff would try to cheat the system over something so phenomenally minor.

Speculating whether an administrator is particularly focused on their responsibilities is an entirely valid point of contention that I am not going to weigh in on one way or another, but outright accusing an administrator of acting in bad faith right out the gate is unreasonable.

In short, jumping to some sort of admin conspiracy-like conclusion is downright childish, especially when that accusation comes from another member of staff, who should know better.

Personally I think that defending another member of staff being lazy and not paying attention, when multiple attempts were made to remind them that they had an open ban appeal, with such vitriolic language simply because they are also a fellow member of staff is something that you should know better than. Especially given that the administrator in question went discord-surfing looking for incriminating comments to deliberately take out of context and make the complainer look like a malicious actor instead of just reiterating "Sorry man I forgot I'll remember better next time", instantly resolving this low-key complaint.

Your posts in this thread against Pugie read far, far more like an externally motivated attack on a coworker than pugie pointing out that admins should be focused on handling their appeals over playing the game. Pugie is correct that the bare minimum of admin ban appeal conduct is beginning to handle a long duration ban appeal before it times out. Sometimes we mess up, though, and we respond to that by saying "Sorry" not "You malicious piece of shit you fabricated the whole incident to besmirch my/my good friends name"

saprasam wrote:

MrAlphonzo wrote:snop

My main point isn't that they were acting out of bad faith, it's more that they have the potential to not be focused on their responsibilities as an administrator.

Then we disagree on nothing.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:snip

I hate repeating myself.

MrAlphonzo wrote:You're mistaking my defense and interpreting it as saying Thunder did nothing wrong.

Speculating whether an administrator is particularly focused on their responsibilities is an entirely valid point of contention

But jumping to some sort of admin conspiracy-like conclusion is downright childish

Let me make myself perfectly, crystal clear.
The only thing I'm arguing is that jumping to accusing an administrator of trying to game the system and wait out a ban, over simply missing an appeal, is irresponsible.

The complainer accused Thunder of such, and Pugie heavily implied as much.

I'm locking this thread until headmin response because this has become a battleground for mudslinging and general character attacks not related to the topic at hand.

Of the 7 appeals Thunder12345 has handled over the past year the majority of them show response times between a couple hours to a couple days(Linked below), with the one this complaint is about being the far outlier of a week. While response times on ban appeals should be prompt this specific case when measured against Thunder's past record is uncharacteristic.

While we understand that this is a valid complaint we do not believe it is a problem exclusive to Thunder12345. Sadly many appeals may go a week or longer without a proper response and we do not wish to make an example of them.

Thunder12345 has not abused admin tools or privileges nor have they showed signs of continuing or developing a bad habit. This complaint will not be upheld.

Thunder12345's past ban appeals from roughly the past 12 months in no particular order:
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=28308
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=27317
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=27943
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=25570
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=26410
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=27001
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 34&t=27244

Headmin Votes:
Coconutwarrior97: Do not uphold.
Domitius: Do not uphold.
Naloac: Do not uphold.