[atlanta-ned] not looking into ahelps

[EmpressMaia]

round: 213015

in this round i observed the mime, who was a heretic, be executed for wearing heretic robes, and having the captains gun in the bridge. i ahelped this and it was an immiedete field execution and didnt feel right, after ahelping, atlanta responded with
-- Administrator private message --
Admin PM from-Atlanta-ned: Okay, thanks. If the mime ahelps we'll look into it.
Click on the administrator's name to reply.

then after sending
PM to-Admins: you still have to look into it, im ahelping for the mime to see if any rule breaking actually occured, if none did you can just say that

was responded to with
- AdminHelp Rejected! -
Your admin help was rejected. The adminhelp verb has been returned to you so that you may try again.


an admin should be lookingg into any cases of rule breaking when possible, and shouldnt be ignoring tickets just because the ahelper wasnt a involved party

[Vekter]

This round is still ongoing.

E: Round ended.

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Admin_Conduct

There is nothing in the Admin Conduct expectations that states that an admin must handle every instance of someone adminhelping and, in previous cases, there is especially no expectation that one responds to every case where a third party adminhelps it.

[EmpressMaia]

I don't expect an admin to handle every single case. But I would want more than a "you weren't involved get fucked"

[Misdoubtful]

What is the exact complaint with this one?

An expectation that Ned must look into this because it was ahelped (And very well may have known the status of things to begin with), or an expectation that Ned must provide a particular customer service centric response?

The goalpost has shifted here already.

Rule 0 states:

Enforcement of these rules is at the discretion of admins.
Admins are fully accountable for any consequences should they invoke this rule. Admins are also allowed to intervene in rounds when it is in the best interest of the playerbase.

Therefore is there an obligation that this be looked into?

Rule 6 states:

If an admin says something was 'looked into, handled, resolved' etc, regarding an issue, it is unlikely an admin will provide any further information. Admins are under no obligation to reveal IC information.

Therefore is there a set expectation that admins provide a particular type of response people will find placating?

Note these are in the rules, there is nothing in the admin conduct covering anything related to this.

Would this be better handled in Ned's feedback thread?

[EmpressMaia]

id like some more verbosity from ned. his initial response to my ahelp came off as him not looking into it only because i was a third party. i dont expect nor want every admin to tell me exactly whats happening all the time, but i want an admin to tell me if it was an IC issue or handeled. if it was an IC issue or valid execution ned could have said that

[TheFinalPotato]

This seems like something you should just put in feedback, but from what I understand a response of "I don't want to look into this" is not a problem, and that's basically what you got.
Admins are allowed to just not, at least I'd hope.

[Timberpoes]

Misdoubtful put some thoughts down, and I'm going to take a moment to put mine down.

There simple reality is that our admin team are not forced to answer tickets. That's your very most starting of all starting points. If an admin sees a ticket pop up and they don't want to investigate it, they don't have to.

However, if they have no intent to answer a ticket we do ask them to make sure they try to get an admin that will handle it onto the servers if they're blocking our ahelp relay system from working.

That doesn't mean admins can actively dismiss tickets without good reason or without due diligence. The choice to dismiss a ticket is still taking responsibility for that ticket. No other admin is able to come in and overrule your decision to close or dismiss the ahelp.

Admins are fully empowered to investigate incidents without an ahelp. Third parties that spot things that feel a bit off can ahelp as well, and admins are fully empowered to investigate off the back of this as well.

In this case, going "Thanks, doesn't look like there are any rule breaks here but I'll keep an eye on it." is probably the same effort as the actual response given and probably conveys what message Ned wanted to communicate to you far clearer. It would have avoided this complaint entirely, I suspect. And probably avoided the player's follow-up message demanding the admin investigate because an ahelp was made.

Moreover, comments like the following made in ASAY after rejecting the ahelp...

Code: Select all

[2023-08-21 01:52:40.075] ADMINPRIVATE-ASAY: Atlanta-ned/(Sloan Cox) "tfw declaring war on maia and their narc ahelps" (Cargo Office (89,120,4))

... such comments even in jest - aren't useful, aren't productive and make me go "oh gee, I surely do wonder how this could have ended up in a complaint, the admin has such a positive attitude to answering ahelps from players" with my inner voice thick like sarcastic marmite.

Ultimately a very valid antag got very valided. I'm gonna hazard a guess (from previous ahelps that shift) that Ned was aware of what was going on and dismissed the ahelp because they knew no rules had been broken. So I suspect what is closer to the truth is that Ned didn't decline to investigate it, but that they already knew enough that they simply didn't need to investigate it since everything looked cash money for RP rules at that point. They just chose a way to reject your ahelp that you found disagreeable. That's not against conduct, but it is something they can work on in the future.

So this complaint was never going to be upheld.

When dismissing genuine and good-faith ahelps, communication is a vital tool in the admin team's arsenal and opting out of using that tool is a complaint magnet, regardless of the written word of admin conduct. We tell players to use their words, so I can tell admins to use their words too.

I hope Ned will take my feedback on board for the future, meritless complaint or otherwise.

[Arianya]

Posting under peanut policy due to a difference of precedence vs what a headmin has said - hoping to gain clarity:

However, if they have no intent to answer a ticket we do ask them to make sure they try to get an admin that will handle it onto the servers if they're blocking our ahelp relay system from working.

In general, this has been based on the idea that you aren't handling a ticket due to some other prior disqualification - i.e. due to conflict of interest, observing but not truly adminning, etc. - otherwise the understanding has been for some time that administrators may opt to not respond/close a ticket if there appears to be no merit. Has this changed at all?

Moreover, comments like the following made in ASAY after rejecting the ahelp...

Code: Select all

[2023-08-21 01:52:40.075] ADMINPRIVATE-ASAY: Atlanta-ned/(Sloan Cox) "tfw declaring war on maia and their narc ahelps" (Cargo Office (89,120,4))

... such comments even in jest - aren't useful, aren't productive and make me go "oh gee, I surely do wonder how this could have ended up in a complaint, the admin has such a positive attitude to answering ahelps from players" with my inner voice thick like sarcastic marmite.

Per What is Expected of the Admins/Admin Conduct, the main expectation of admins is that:

Maintain professional conduct both in game and outside of the game. It is expected that you take the position seriously. This doesn't mean you can't talk casually to the playerbase, but remain professional on the forums, as well as on other Space Station 13 communities.

In practice, this has meant in the past is that admins should not be unprofessional/rude to players faces or in public spaces (OOC, Forums, Public Discord channels) - the idea here being that admins will have players they want to complain about or dislike, and that this is normal and fine assuming it does not lead to undue bias/poor decisions being made - could you clarify if there is now an expectation that conduct in asay/#admin-bus/etc. will avoid "such comments even in jest"?

[Timberpoes]

Posting under peanut policy due to a difference of precedence vs what a headmin has said - hoping to gain clarity:

However, if they have no intent to answer a ticket we do ask them to make sure they try to get an admin that will handle it onto the servers if they're blocking our ahelp relay system from working.

In general, this has been based on the idea that you aren't handling a ticket due to some other prior disqualification - i.e. due to conflict of interest, observing but not truly adminning, etc. - otherwise the understanding has been for some time that administrators may opt to not respond/close a ticket if there appears to be no merit. Has this changed at all?

When you close/reject a ticket because you think it has no merit, that's your administrative ruling. No other admin can take the ticket and/or investigate it without stepping over your call to reject the ticket. The implication other admins will take from it is that you've done your due diligence before closing/rejecting it and it has been done with good reason.

And not taking the ticket is perfectly fine in the alternative. We don't even really want or need a reason for you not to take a ticket while adminned up. But you really should make sure the ticket gets relayed if this is the case, because it's not very cash money to ghost-reject a ticket by refusing to answer it while also blocking opportunities for it to relay to other admins that may take the ticket instead.

That includes if you don't think the ticket has any merit but don't want to be the one to take it. You should still try to get another admin online to handle it instead, as I think it's pretty poor conduct to intentionally ghost tickets in the hopes that nobody else takes them but you didn't have to be the one to reject it.

I hope that's a sensible take that everyone can agree with?

Moreover, comments like the following made in ASAY after rejecting the ahelp...

Code: Select all

[2023-08-21 01:52:40.075] ADMINPRIVATE-ASAY: Atlanta-ned/(Sloan Cox) "tfw declaring war on maia and their narc ahelps" (Cargo Office (89,120,4))

... such comments even in jest - aren't useful, aren't productive and make me go "oh gee, I surely do wonder how this could have ended up in a complaint, the admin has such a positive attitude to answering ahelps from players" with my inner voice thick like sarcastic marmite.

Per What is Expected of the Admins/Admin Conduct, the main expectation of admins is that:

Maintain professional conduct both in game and outside of the game. It is expected that you take the position seriously. This doesn't mean you can't talk casually to the playerbase, but remain professional on the forums, as well as on other Space Station 13 communities.

In practice, this has meant in the past is that admins should not be unprofessional/rude to players faces or in public spaces (OOC, Forums, Public Discord channels) - the idea here being that admins will have players they want to complain about or dislike, and that this is normal and fine assuming it does not lead to undue bias/poor decisions being made - could you clarify if there is now an expectation that conduct in asay/#admin-bus/etc. will avoid "such comments even in jest"?

Admins can say whatever the heck they like in admin channels.

But saying inappropiate things in private can lead to bans or notes being overturned, and can lead to upheld complaints. What admins say in private often adds context to decisions made.

Rejecting an ahelp then diving right into ASAY to comment on how you're acting against that player because they're doing "narc ahelps"? Ned's fortunate that the other headmins on the team have alternative standards than I do, because I would have upheld this complaint on that basis alone, since it implies the reason Ned rejected the ahelp was simply because Maia made it and he dislikes players "narc"ing on eachother.

Re-quoting myself from January:

Whatever the outcome of this complaint, I strongly urge certain admins to treat the players will less derision and animosity.

Admins are expendable, the game will still run without them. But without players, there is no game. Something we could all benefit to remember.

[kieth4]

Let me explain my angle I suppose.

I'm torn to an extent here.

I found it frustrating as a player when you and your homie are hanging out and doing flarping funny stuff to which a third party ahelps you and then there's some fat investigation over a nothing burger and then you or your bro get noted even if no one had an issue with it. It doesn't feel fantastic, especially if there are only two people involved.

In this case it's a bit different where 1 person was killed by another and there was a third party ahelp. I dunno. Unless it's about something that hits multiple people I don't really want to force admins to act on 3rd party ahelps.

Maybe calling them a narc in asay is incredibly cringe because you're using a private channel to almost insult people.

If you want to call someone a snitch or a narc do it in public with public info as opposed to using private places where no one will see it. This is the only thing I really take issues with.

[Fikou]

I think this was handled??