On the position of headmin and host.

callanrockslol · Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:56 am

As everyone knows there's a few changes going on, headmin elections and a transition to a new host and crowdfunded hosting.

This is going rather smoothly, but a bunch of issues have come up, especially as to the degree of the autonomy of the admin team and Anons position on how its managed and his potential administrative duties.

I think that after the fracas that lead us to the path of a new host we need to get things set in stone regarding all of this.

Alex Crimson · Post by **Alex Crimson** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:27 am #79441

I think we need to discuss what a "host" actually is, and what that position is actually responsible for.

When Scaredofshadows was host, he fully funded the server and managed all technical issues. As such he was given full admin powers and had a massive amount of influence. He could essentially do whatever he wanted. Give himself admin powers even when he was being "punished" for abusing them. Completely bypass the ban process and outright blacklist players. Had the ability to change any policy he wanted without consulting the headmins. He was allowed to get away with most of this because... he paid for the server. Very few people wanted to call him out. Eventually he kinda just self-destructed and handed everything over to Anon.

Now we have a new host. However the conditions are different, he isnt paying for the server. We now run on donations alone. So how should the host role be changed? No doubt he is working hard to maintain the server, but should he have any of the benefits SoS had? Admin powers are fine. Anon had those before anyways and ive never seen him abuse them. What about the rest? Blacklisting players, policy changes, the apparent admin managing role he has taken on etc.

Once the elections are done with, Anon will no longer be a headmin. I just cannot help but feel like he is still going to have a big voice when it comes to things that should be left to the headmins. SoS had good intentions when he made terrible decisions. Look how that went.

Saegrimr · Post by **Saegrimr** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:29 am #79443

So i'm gonna repost this here since its a better place for it.

Alex Crimson wrote: Why should they? Host is a required position, not an elected one. Id understand if it were technical stuff like measures to ensure minimal lag on the server, but outside of that i dont think we need anyone sitting on the top of the food chain.

Host isnt that kind of position.

He shouldnt have a voice in the discussion of policy changes outside of what a normal admin would have.

I honestly don't know what to say to this.
The dude literally has the keys to the box and can tell each and every one of us to fuck off and find another server and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it.
And you really don't think they have any say in what goes on in his server?

Its not a matter of what you think they SHOULD have, they have that power whether you like it or not. You can't do fuck all about it other than leave. Welcome to life.

Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:14 am

Saegrimr wrote:So i'm gonna repost this here since its a better place for it.

Alex Crimson wrote: Why should they? Host is a required position, not an elected one. Id understand if it were technical stuff like measures to ensure minimal lag on the server, but outside of that i dont think we need anyone sitting on the top of the food chain.

Host isnt that kind of position.

He shouldnt have a voice in the discussion of policy changes outside of what a normal admin would have.
I honestly don't know what to say to this.
The dude literally has the keys to the box and can tell each and every one of us to fuck off and find another server and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it.
And you really don't think they have any say in what goes on in his server?

Its not a matter of what you think they SHOULD have, they have that power whether you like it or not. You can't do fuck all about it other than leave. Welcome to life.

Except if he did that he would have no funding and no players therefore no point to hosting, don't act like he can just get away with whatever the hell he wants without consequence. As I recall he doesn't have ownership over the box either I think it's crossbowman5 or SoS who actually 'own' the server.

Again An0n has said he wants to distance himself from the server in terms of how it's run and policy, and only dealing with adminstration when someone is abusing or just being a plain dick to everyone. I don't think he wants to take the attitude of "I'M THE SERVER HOST DO AS I SAY OR I BAN U"

Saegrimr · Post by **Saegrimr** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:30 am #79456

I completely agree, but at the end of the day the entire population is basically second to whatever he says should he want to do anything about it. This doesn't go for just An0n3 or Scaredy either. It's basically the same thing with pomf over at /vg/, and whoever the fuck pays the bills over at bay and hippie. Whatever the owners decide to do with their servers is completely up to them, not a screaming bunch who think they should have zero say or power over the things they own.

Alex Crimson · Post by **Alex Crimson** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:31 am #79457

Saegrimr wrote:So i'm gonna repost this here since its a better place for it.

Alex Crimson wrote: Why should they? Host is a required position, not an elected one. Id understand if it were technical stuff like measures to ensure minimal lag on the server, but outside of that i dont think we need anyone sitting on the top of the food chain.

Host isnt that kind of position.

He shouldnt have a voice in the discussion of policy changes outside of what a normal admin would have.
I honestly don't know what to say to this.
The dude literally has the keys to the box and can tell each and every one of us to fuck off and find another server and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it.
And you really don't think they have any say in what goes on in his server?

Its not a matter of what you think they SHOULD have, they have that power whether you like it or not. You can't do fuck all about it other than leave. Welcome to life.

Grow a spine.

and im not calling Anon an abuser. He hasnt done anything yet. I just want to be clear on the host position, what it entails and how far Anon intends to push his influence. If he insists on being a part of the policy discussion then i fail to see how this is any different to the situation we had with SoS. People with good intentions still make bad decisions.

Akkryls · Post by **Akkryls** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:39 am #79458

Alex Crimson wrote:
Saegrimr wrote:So i'm gonna repost this here since its a better place for it.

Alex Crimson wrote: Why should they? Host is a required position, not an elected one. Id understand if it were technical stuff like measures to ensure minimal lag on the server, but outside of that i dont think we need anyone sitting on the top of the food chain.

Host isnt that kind of position.

He shouldnt have a voice in the discussion of policy changes outside of what a normal admin would have.
I honestly don't know what to say to this.
The dude literally has the keys to the box and can tell each and every one of us to fuck off and find another server and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it.
And you really don't think they have any say in what goes on in his server?

Its not a matter of what you think they SHOULD have, they have that power whether you like it or not. You can't do fuck all about it other than leave. Welcome to life.
Grow a spine.

and im not calling Anon an abuser. He hasnt done anything yet. I just want to be clear on the host position, what it entails and how far Anon intends to push his influence. If he insists on being a part of the policy discussion then i fail to see how this is any different to the situation we had with SoS. People with good intentions still make bad decisions.

Pretty much covered with : https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3193
Seriously, you people are turning this into some sort of witch hunt.

Post by **oranges** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:41 am #79459

I think the fact that the server is funded by players should act as a decent check on An0n3 to not do his best to drive people away. Maybe thats what SoS missed.

Stickymayhem · Post by **Stickymayhem** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:45 am #79460

An0n3 is working so hard to keep us all able to play and has done literally nothing but do so for the last week.

He has never abused his power and never worked from any angle other than to try to make the game better for everyone.

Honestly this is getting ridiculous. He is working insanely hard to get us some freedom and security from the problems we've been having and on top of that stress I don't think we need this.

At the very least we can hold off on this scrutiny until things settle down.

Alex Crimson · Post by **Alex Crimson** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:48 am #79463

Stickymayhem wrote:An0n3 is working so hard to keep us all able to play and has done literally nothing but do so for the last week.

He has never abused his power and never worked from any angle other than to try to make the game better for everyone.

Honestly this is getting ridiculous. He is working insanely hard to get us some freedom and security from the problems we've been having and on top of that stress I don't think we need this.

At the very least we can hold off on this scrutiny until things settle down.

I agree. He has done some serious work. Im totally fine with him continuing to be the host. We do however need a clear line drawn. Not vague promises that he will only step in when he deems it necessary.

Stickymayhem · Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:17 pm

Basic server settings and managing admins seem to be his purview.

Stuff like assistant maintenance, public logs, security antag and so on. Also he would have a final say in deadmins, although he'd likely defer to headmins for that.

Headmins write and enforce new policy and admin behaviour. New rules, stuff like ERP, crackdowns on behaviours we no longer want and in what circumstances people will get bwoinked are examples of that.

Saegrimr · Post by **Saegrimr** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 10:18 am #79482

I'm not trying to put An0n3 down or anything. It's just hilarious what some people expect from a host.

ColonicAcid · Post by **ColonicAcid** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:07 am #79489

callanrockslol wrote: I think that after the fracas

You piece of shit I'm still reconciling after we lost Jeremy Clarkson how c-could you ;_;

callanrockslol · Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:49 am

ColonicAcid wrote:
callanrockslol wrote: I think that after the fracas
You piece of shit I'm still reconciling after we lost Jeremy Clarkson how c-could you ;_;

I did it for you bby ♥

Stickymayhem wrote:...managing admins seem to be his purview.

Stuff like assistant maintenance,... security antag and so on...

This is the sort of stuff that needs to be discussed, these things are major policy issues and shouldn't necessarily be host decisions. Especially if he isn't going to have a hand in policy.

As for admins, I really see problems in having an admin team that is not allowed to be self-managed, especially seeing as most of the potential headmins aren't necessarily going to get along with each other and immediately agree to give their friends power. Even if its someone that has shown himself to be someone that we can trust we these things I really don't like the idea of that decision resting on one person.

This is the sort of stuff that needs to be sorted out ASAP.

Saegrimr wrote:The dude literally has the keys to the box and can tell each and every one of us to fuck off and find another server and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it.
And you really don't think they have any say in what goes on in his server?

Its not a matter of what you think they SHOULD have, they have that power whether you like it or not. You can't do fuck all about it other than leave. Welcome to life.

This is the sort of attitude that needs to stop, entirely. Especially with administrators.

The host of the server does not own the community, we can and currently are moving to a new one. We've been through 3 webhosts, 2 hosts and 2 codebases since I started playing here 4 years ago. Given that paying for the server is crowdfunded now there is even less ground to say that.

If everything goes to shit we can and will find someone else, nobody is irreplaceable when it comes down to it.

Not-Dorsidarf · Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am

I'm pretty sure the whole setup for 'technical side of things' goes like this:

SOS has a box in a dataserver somewhere . That box has all our stuff on it
Anon3 is in total control of that box .
The /tg/station community puts money in a web account to pay for SOS to have the box for anon3 to control.
The non-forum playerbase doesn't notice anything happened.

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:36 pm #79564

Read this:
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=3228

and this:
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3193

Alex Crimson · Post by **Alex Crimson** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:32 pm #79583

Already read them both. One mostly talks about server funding and the other doesnt explain things much better. In the end all you really said was that you would have no say in policies outside of situations you deem necessary to interfere in. Seeing as you are just responsible for the technical runnings of the server i see no reason why you should be an "admin admin" or have any say in policies. Period.

As ive said, you are very vague on how far you will push your host status. That is worrying considering SoS, even though he had the best intentions, overstepped his bounds many times.

ThanatosRa · Post by **ThanatosRa** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:32 pm #79622

Alex Crimson wrote:Already read them both. One mostly talks about server funding and the other doesnt explain things much better. In the end all you really said was that you would have no say in policies outside of situations you deem necessary to interfere in. Seeing as you are just responsible for the technical runnings of the server i see no reason why you should be an "admin admin" or have any say in policies. Period.

As ive said, you are very vague on how far you will push your host status. That is worrying considering SoS, even though he had the best intentions, overstepped his bounds many times.

"The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

An0n3 will make mistakes. But I like to think we've known him well enough to own up to them when he does.

Hornygranny · Post by **Hornygranny** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:46 pm #79644

Since the move off of ss13.eu there are actually checks in case a host goes bonkers, namely that neither scaredy nor An0n3 own the domain name or the web server, meaning that it's entirely possible for the DNS records to be changed and all of those bookmarks and buttons would go to a different server.

Aurx · Post by **Aurx** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:15 am #79715

Hornygranny wrote:Since the move off of ss13.eu there are actually checks in case a host goes bonkers, namely that neither scaredy nor An0n3 own the domain name or the web server, meaning that it's entirely possible for the DNS records to be changed and all of those bookmarks and buttons would go to a different server.

What checks do we have against the forum host going bonkers and changing the buttons and bookmarks to go to a different server?

Not-Dorsidarf · Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:48 am

The server blacklist.

Ikarrus · Post by **Ikarrus** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:00 pm #79830

There's no point in having head admins if the host keeps flexing their authority over them.

Under sos I felt less like a driving power and more like I was just his assistant. I was powerless in all cases where it actually mattered, as everything was either vetoe'd or dictated by the host. The position was meaningless and is just there to do everythig the host doesn't want to.

I don't know if things will remain the same way under anon; I've been out for the last 3 weeks. But if the host still wants to play bossman then you guys don't really need me and I won't be interested.

danno · Post by **danno** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:16 pm #79832

callanrockslol wrote: This is going rather smoothly

ThanatosRa · Post by **ThanatosRa** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:54 pm #79847

Good god I'm so tired of seeing this! Instead of vague half-bitching and passive aggressive power plays CAN WE JUST GIVE IT A COUPLE WEEKS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!?

scaredofshadows · Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:12 pm

Ikarrus wrote:There's no point in having head admins if the host keeps flexing their authority over them.

Under sos I felt less like a driving power and more like I was just his assistant. I was powerless in all cases where it actually mattered, as everything was either vetoe'd or dictated by the host. The position was meaningless and is just there to do everythig the host doesn't want to.

I don't know if things will remain the same way under anon; I've been out for the last 3 weeks. But if the host still wants to play bossman then you guys don't really need me and I won't be interested.

I'm sorry you felt that way, but everything I did was 1) done in the best interests of the server and 2) most likely what you, hg or an0n3 would have done in my position.

When no one wants to listen to reason (even the admins that I personally brought in and shielded from criticism of the masses), the only tool left is 'pulling rank'.

I'm curious to see how you, an0n3 and the rest of the team are going to handle a community in which the person ultimately in charge of everyone is seen as the villain by a good portion of the player base and admin team.

Tsaricide · Post by **Tsaricide** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:14 pm #80035

So many things wrong with that post sos.

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:26 pm #80037

No, people treat you as a villain because every time you played on the server you were one the biggest grey tiders going, right up there with Uhangi and BeardBeard and Pax.

People treated you as a villain because as a host you kept pushing in policies which no one but you liked.
See:
-The constant dogging on of security trying to do their job
-Making the HoS last in line of succession
-Making it bannable for HoSes to execute prisoners on their own initiative, rather than it just being an IC issue if they didn't seek captain's approval first.
-Making it bannable if a Sec Officer kills a violent traitor once the cuffs are on.
-Banning traitors from murderboning.

And then theres the admin abuse where you'd abuse your admin powers to get back at a player that you'd felt had wronged you.

The fact of the matter is is that you being the Host actually gave you a hell of a lot of protection from scrutiny, which you deserved by your own actions.

onleavedontatme · Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:23 am

Stickymayhem wrote: Stuff like assistant maintenance, security antag and so on.

Huh? What exactly are headmins supposed to decide then? I understand if anon wants to put his foot down on public logs/relations with coderbus because those are meta server issues but both those things are part of the rules/gameplay.

I don't want to start an argument over this or anything because it's not my show to run but I'm clearly confused or misinformed. Has it been clearly laid out anywhere what exactly the headmin duties will be now?

Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:08 pm

Kor wrote:
Huh? What exactly are headmins supposed to decide then? I understand if anon wants to put his foot down on public logs/relations with coderbus because those are meta server issues but both those things are part of the rules/gameplay.

I don't want to start an argument over this or anything because it's not my show to run but I'm clearly confused or misinformed. Has it been clearly laid out anywhere what exactly the headmin duties will be now?

According to An0n3

An0n3 wrote:The admins manage the players, and by that I mean that they determine the policy, the rules, and enforce them. I want the headmins to have complete authority of the rules, and that means that if they want to change things I have previously setup and in ways I may not necessarily like, it's their job to do that AND NOT MINE. The host should not be leaping over the admin team to administrate directly on the server except in the rare case where I might be playing and nobody else is around to answer a help, or someone is appealing an old ban I gave them.

To be honest what consitutes something to do with the server and something to do with policy/rules can be easily defined when you phrase it
"Our policy is that we have public logs!"
"Our policy is that we have a soft cap on assistants!"
As opposed too
"Our policy is to have better hardware!"
"Our policy is to have three servers!"
"It's our policy to host this game!"

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:27 pm #80191

It's pretty clear if you pull your head out of your own ass.

Will having public logs change how someone plays during a round? No. It doesn't affect the round in progress and doesn't change any of the gameplay. It's therefore not rules or policy and not a headmin decision.

Will enabling traitor security change how someone plays during a round? Definitely. There will be more possibilities for traitors and extra suspicion cast on sec. It will have major effects on gameplay and is therefore definitely a headmin decision.

onleavedontatme · Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:55 pm

An0n3 wrote:It's pretty clear if you pull your head out of your own ass.

Will having public logs change how someone plays during a round? No. It doesn't affect the round in progress and doesn't change any of the gameplay. It's therefore not rules or policy and not a headmin decision.

Will enabling traitor security change how someone plays during a round? Definitely. There will be more possibilities for traitors and extra suspicion cast on sec. It will have major effects on gameplay and is therefore definitely a headmin decision.

That makes sense and is what I thought you meant originally but this thread is what caused my confusion.

Sticky saying those things were "basic server settings" that you decided (lumping in traitor sec with public logs for whatever reason) is what confused me. I assumed he'd been part of a conversation in adminbus and had information I didn't.

Thanks for clearing it up.

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:34 pm #80222

The confusion is caused by people not reading what I'm saying and instead trying to come up with their own contradictions or misinterpretations.

It's frustrating to have to repeat myself so many times.

Even if you can't wrap your head around the reasoning just shutup and take what I've said at face value fuck.

Public logs = no. up to me.

Tatersec, Assmaint, etc. = yes. talk it out.

Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:21 am

An0n3 wrote:The confusion is caused by people not reading what I'm saying and instead trying to come up with their own contradictions or misinterpretations.

It's frustrating to have to repeat myself so many times.

Even if you can't wrap your head around the reasoning just shutup and take what I've said at face value fuck.

Public logs = no. up to me.

Tatersec, Assmaint, etc. = yes. talk it out.

edit
i misread

anyway you should still probably calm down

Alex Crimson · Post by **Alex Crimson** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:52 am #80288

What is all this rubbish with public logs anyways? Why are they are thing, and why doesnt Anon want them?

TheNightingale · Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:38 am

Alex Crimson wrote:What is all this rubbish with public logs anyways? Why are they are thing, and why doesnt Anon want them?

Public logs are where anyone can access a full log of a round that happened (not ones in progress, though) for any reason. At the moment, you can usually get it by asking the admins, but were they public, anyone could see them. /vg/station (home of Pomf, who you might've seen clucking around) has public logs.

Some people want them for transparency reasons ('there's nothing to hide, so why not?'), and some just want to reread their ERP.
Some people don't want them for privacy reasons ('but what about my secret ERP'), and some are just paranoid.

Alex Crimson · Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:45 am

That... doesnt seem like a big deal. I imagine there must be some serious reason for Anon not allowing them.

WeeYakk · Post by **WeeYakk** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:58 pm #80326

From: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3193

The admins manage the players, and by that I mean that they determine the policy, the rules, and enforce them. I want the headmins to have complete authority of the rules, and that means that if they want to change things I have previously setup and in ways I may not necessarily like, it's their job to do that AND NOT MINE. The host should not be leaping over the admin team to administrate directly on the server except in the rare case where I might be playing and nobody else is around to answer a help, or someone is appealing an old ban I gave them.

So this unilateral ERP ban and banning Kavaloosh are host jobs which are not policy and rules which are also not headmin jobs???

TheNightingale · Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:47 pm

The ERP ban was from before An0n3 was made host (and so not a host job), and Kavaloosh was harassing other players.

It's not too hard to work out. If it affects players directly in-game, it's a headmin thing - if not, it's a host thing.

Not-Dorsidarf · Mon Apr 06, 2015 2:54 pm

Malkevin wrote: -Making the HoS last in line of succession
-Making it bannable for HoSes to execute prisoners on their own initiative, rather than it just being an IC issue if they didn't seek captain's approval first.
-Making it bannable if a Sec Officer kills a violent traitor once the cuffs are on.

Were any of these SOS?
I'm fairly sure that the HOS has been last in line for a long, long time (specifically to discourage him from seizing power)

And why would you on-the-spot kill a cuffed violent traitor except for 'MY VALID KILL!'?

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 4:24 pm #80650

Yea, they were all SOS

Valid kills are valid, stop being a gaping vagina because you went loud as an antag and got robusted for it

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 4:26 pm #80652

I thought the rule was that all heads of staff have a equal shot for the position of Captain, and that usually the Head of Personal is the first in line only as a suggestion, but is usually promoted to Captain due to him being in the best position and mindset to take up that duty.

I personally don't see a problem in game from taking over the Captain's position when the station is under threat and/or the HoP is MIA.

E: However, I do agree that I think the HoS role was unneededly restricted in certain capacties, and I think the HoS, of all people, should have greater leniency to dispense harsher capital punishments on the spot if warranted.

Scones · Post by **Scones** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 7:21 pm #80675

Steelpoint wrote:-security snip-

I actually don't see anything on the Chain of Command page regarding the HoS being last in the line of succession. Personally, I prefer to only step up to command if nobody else is - IMO the Head of Security should focus on Security matters, not being Captain. Desperate times call for desperate measures, though, and you ARE the only implanted roundstart head outside of the Captain, which both from an IC and OOC perspective makes you the most trustworthy candidate for stepping up.

HoS can dispense executions because the Captain is usually 'indisposed' when the decision is being made

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:02 pm #80702

It was on there when the rules were rewritten a couple of years back, it did get sneakily removed though because everyone agreed it was dumb.

Not-Dorsidarf · Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am

Malkevin wrote:
Valid kills are valid, stop being a gaping vagina because you went loud as an antag and got robusted for it

> Implying I have ever been robusted by sec as anything but a nuker.

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:11 am #80851

Honestly the reason why I like to sneak up on the Captains position if I can (When the Cap's Dead and HoP is MIA) is simply to get rid of that grey area in executions/perma, since if I'm the HoS and Acting Captain I can just do whatever I need to do in order to do my job.

bandit · Post by **bandit** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:36 am #81006

I thought it was that HoS was last because he generally had the most shit to do out of all the heads, and the HoP was first because after the initial flood of assistants/clowns/mimes he had the least. So next in line would be the CMO, then RD, then the CE, then finally the HoS.

Ikarrus · Post by **Ikarrus** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 12:44 am #81012

I was the one that wrote the HoS's place in the line of succession on the wiki. I did it to discourage HoSs from grabbing Captain, but it's by no means against server rules to do so. It's just an IC guideline.

Post by **oranges** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:18 am #81032

An0n3 wrote: Public logs = no. up to me. the community

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:58 am #81042

/vg/ has public logs because they need to them to facilitate ban requests and appeals.

Unlike us they communicate mostly through anonymous general threads on 4chan, so players need that to expedite any kind of out-of-game requests of the admin staff. We don't have that situation so, like every other SS13 server, we don't offer our logs to the public.

Here when anyone wants to bring up a claim of shittery against another player and no admins were present we have them make a thread in our FNR forum. If they haven't logged the situation themselves (though most players already do) we can go dive through the register pretty quickly and find the relevant information. It's a much better system than providing public logs to the players and then having them post complaints in generals threads hoping an admin sees them.

The argument for public logs is that it'll give the players more transparency into what adminbus does and allow them to keep tabs on eachother better.

The argument against public logs is that our community is mostly fueled by spite and will use the logs to harass eachother. That a certain amount of anonymity people enjoy playing here will be lost if everything they do and say ICly is a matter of public record. That hours and hours of people's time will get wasted in the name of people stitching together ban requests for players they don't like over situations they weren't there for and are removed from their context.

I would sooner refurbish and revive the admin observer role and find a few people in the community I could enlist to help me police the admins for abuse (and trust not to start expunging details and humiliating anecdotes of players they don't like) than I would turn everything that happens here into something everyone could browse and read and share whether they were present or not.

Ultimately I don't think having another avenue for transparency will actually change people's minds, if /vg/ is any example people will continue to sling the same shit and act just as awful and biased no matter how much evidence they're provided to the contrary. I think people want to be upset and hold grudges. Rather than alleviate that tension in the community public logs will just give people more ammunition to misconstrue and act like spoiled brats over.

We already do so many more things than any other server to bring the playerbase into the decision making process and show them as much of our workings as is feasible. To ask for even more is really ungrateful and I promise you it's something I will continue to stonewall as long I'm able to. If what we offer you now is not enough for you, you're frankly shit out of luck. You can go play on /vg/ where they have public logs, but no public elections and no static forums to air complaints with specific admins or issue other feedback. You can go play on Goon or Bay or Hippie or wherever else where they have neither public logs nor elected headmins and often when it comes to policy they just tell you how it is or what is changing and don't give a fuck what you think about it.

You have it really good here, and it's really shitty to act like you're entitled to more when you just plain aren't. When giving you more actively fucks up the system and adds more workload to an already overstressed portion of the machine.

Post by **oranges** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:24 am #81055

You really don't think very highly of the community do you?

Perhaps if you had more of a chance to interact with people other than via ban requests and appeals and random singulo threads you might actually find that the majority of them are just here to play the game and have fun.