/tg/Station 13

if one admin wont ban someone for something, the easiest solution is to wait for them to DC then ahelp it again for the next admin

make this bannable

It's already highly frowned upon and factors into ban decisions and appeals.

feem wrote:It's already highly frowned upon and factors into ban decisions and appeals.

i do not trust the administration to moderate themselves

iamgoofball wrote:

feem wrote:It's already highly frowned upon and factors into ban decisions and appeals.

i do not trust the administration to moderate themselves

lol

iamgoofball wrote:

feem wrote:It's already highly frowned upon and factors into ban decisions and appeals.

i do not trust the administration to moderate themselves

You're welcome to audit all ahelp logs. I've already been thinking about putting all player text into elasticsearch and performing lexical analysis, there's no reason why you can't do the same thing with ahelps.

feem wrote:

iamgoofball wrote:

feem wrote:It's already highly frowned upon and factors into ban decisions and appeals.

i do not trust the administration to moderate themselves

You're welcome to audit all ahelp logs. I've already been thinking about putting all player text into elasticsearch and performing lexical analysis, there's no reason why you can't do the same thing with ahelps.

ahelp logs aren't publicly available.

Atlanta-Ned wrote: ahelp logs aren't publicly available.

Guess someone who doesn't trust the admins of the server they play on is screwed then!

feem wrote:

Atlanta-Ned wrote: ahelp logs aren't publicly available.

Guess someone who doesn't trust the admins of the server they play on is screwed then!

This is a shitty excuse to avoid transparency.

iamgoofball wrote:

feem wrote:

Atlanta-Ned wrote: ahelp logs aren't publicly available.

Guess someone who doesn't trust the admins of the server they play on is screwed then!

This is a shitty excuse to avoid transparency.

I've been pushing for ahelp tickets to be logged to the DB but that's not up to GameAdmins. I think it's a headmin thing? Not sure where the line is.

I would not mind them being public

I definitely think they should be public; I thought they were.

Sometimes admins go afk or pull an IcePacks and vanish during your conversation though

Lazengann wrote:Sometimes admins go afk or pull an IcePacks and vanish during your conversation though

that's taking what you can get as opposed to shopping.

Punishing you for things we do would be a bit unfair.

Two concerns of them being public are

-People being hassled for ahelping

-Admins being hassled for not being mean enough in ahelps after a player insists they go yell at someone

but goof doesn't trust admins to police themselves

Kor wrote:Two concerns of them being public are

-People being hassled for ahelping

-Admins being hassled for not being mean enough in ahelps after a player insists they go yell at someone

People are gonna get hassled in general. I'd say we should put tickets in the DB, but keep the various frontends admin-only (and tie them to bans/notes etc), with the ability to publicize them if necessary.

the choice between getting hassled and not hassled is pretty clear to me

I also don't want my adminpms as a player or admin readable by everyone. If it's a matter of specific 'public interest' the logs usually get looked up and posted anyway.

I don't think this requires a policy change because everybody is already aware that this is a shit thing to do.

i also don't think you should be sating any of goofballs minimod delusions

feem wrote: Guess someone who doesn't trust the admins of the server they play on is screwed then!

Don't worry, goof doesn't play anyway so he's okay

I'm fine with admin logs being public, at least the admins' contributions (names/ckeys of the ahelper can be redacted). People made the same arguments about public logs and none of the shit people predicted came remotely close to happening.

remember when we thought public logs would result in people being harrassed?

oranges wrote:remember when we thought public logs would result in people being harrassed?

does anyone even use the public logs?

EDIT: also you have a point but admins are a little bit likelier of a target in this case

i still don't think it would really happen unless attention was called to it, though, so yeah

The truth will come out that I IC issue everything tho please!!!!!!!

There shouldn't really be anything in ahelp logs people wouldn't want public besides bad behavior

ShadowDimentio wrote:There shouldn't really be anything in ahelp logs people wouldn't want public besides bad behavior

i just realized

we can't make admin logs public because then the funny ahelps thread in the admin forums has no reason to exist

shit

you leaked it anyway so

If the Ahelp logs were publicized, wouldn't that cause issues with sensitive topics like ahelps about meta-friends and the like? Kind of hard to keep an eye on people for stuff like that if they can read it.

Kor wrote:Two concerns of them being public are

-People being hassled for ahelping

-Admins being hassled for not being mean enough in ahelps after a player insists they go yell at someone

So the concerns are someone who has already harassed the player doing it a again, basically giving said griefer more rope to be banned for longer perhaps forever.

Aaaaand something admins wouldn't care about anyway because circle them wagons, slap them wrists ADMIN COMPLAINTS SHALL NOT PASS!

Publicised ahelp logs how to do idea:

Public logs have ckeys and character names replaced by CKEY 1(CHARACTER 1) exceot for the admins.

(1 being replaced by whatever number the key/name is)

Qbopper wrote:

oranges wrote:remember when we thought public logs would result in people being harrassed?

does anyone even use the public logs?

I use them to look up rounds when the admins complain about it "being hard"

Yeah maybe when the admins are consistent people will stop shopping for better admins to work with.

Like if Icepax tries to resolve anything sec related, I'm shopping immediately for a new admin.

Please, please, miss me with that. I wouldn't answer Niknakflak if he was Hillary Clinton and I was stuck in Benghazi, and the only way I could get out of Benghazi was to answer.

It ain't happening, like if Kevinz bwoinked me for anything cat related. Yeah no anyone else please.

Please, miss me with that. Like call up anyone, Kor, Oweg, Karp, give me anyone consistent and reasonable.


Take this on as you remember how inconsistent Joan was.

J_Madison wrote:Yeah maybe when the admins are consistent people will stop shopping for better admins to work with.

Like if Icepax tries to resolve anything sec related, I'm shopping immediately for a new admin.

except for the part where you're banned

bandit wrote:

J_Madison wrote:Yeah maybe when the admins are consistent people will stop shopping for better admins to work with.

Like if Icepax tries to resolve anything sec related, I'm shopping immediately for a new admin.

except for the part where you're banned

That's the ad hom of the century. Me being banned was not because of adminshopping and my reasons for "talking to multiple admins", was not adminshopping.

The ban is literally a 1 or a 0 that is less than a kilobyte of data. That's insignificant.

Regardless;

I think it's clear that everyone has a right to whom they wish to speak to when it comes to admins.
It's a universal right to stay silent and refuse to talk with an admin who you believe will exasperate, sabotage, or delay results for you.


The only reason this exists is because of inconsistency. Had all admins be consistent, I would feel no need and no reason to ask another admin because the result should be the same.

oranges wrote:

Qbopper wrote:

oranges wrote:remember when we thought public logs would result in people being harrassed?

does anyone even use the public logs?

I use them to look up rounds when the admins complain about it "being hard"

They're also good when you see a feature removal PR to confirm that the coder actually died to it

J_Madison wrote:I think it's clear that everyone has a right to whom they wish to speak to when it comes to admins.
It's a universal right to stay silent and refuse to talk with an admin who you believe will exasperate, sabotage, or delay results for you.

Let us know how it goes when you refuse to talk to an admin because they're not your preferred handler, jmad

That was sarcasm, by the way, because you're banned.

Arianya wrote:

J_Madison wrote:I think it's clear that everyone has a right to whom they wish to speak to when it comes to admins.
It's a universal right to stay silent and refuse to talk with an admin who you believe will exasperate, sabotage, or delay results for you.

Let us know how it goes when you refuse to talk to an admin because they're not your preferred handler, jmad

That was sarcasm, by the way, because you're banned.

Went pretty well actually. My "handler" stuck a note on the guy that ahelped, and my "not preferred admin" stuck a ban on me that was appealed and the admin warned for making a shit ban.

But yeah, I'll be banned. For about five more months.

Let's please not derail this thread to talk about why a particular player was or wasn't banned.

regardless of why jmad was banned

>player who is currently banned makes post in thread about adminshopping being shit about how he would for sure adminshop

really makes you consider the current situation

Yes. Inconsistent admin results.

Perhaps we should be able to rate our admin interaction from 1 to 5.

Generally speaking when the person dealing with me is a level headed, reasonable and fair admin, I like it.
Yes, absolutely do, get at me, hard swipe right for those admins, @ me and DM me with that.

But when at an admin that I know will side against me and has made their mind up already. Or admins with discrepancies or potentially biased view against me (who adminned the naked kill/banbaiting lizard, or someone who has a past of metagaming and powergaming).
No thanks, absolutely not, please miss me with that, anyone but you, Hard swipe left and blocked, don't @ me.

No hate though. Anyone can change. If an admin finds himself shopped hard maybe we should look to see if they're faulty and deserve the refund and rebate.

In real life it is a pile of difficult work to get a consensus with a group of people over something so subjective in a workplace setting where everyone is there because they are making money

Admins are volunteers and it is entirely unreasonable to attempt to hold them to the standards of paid professionals. I am sure many would rather leave.

This is a game. have some perspective

Ban minimodding tbh.

J_Madison wrote:
It ain't happening, like if Kevinz bwoinked me for anything cat related. Yeah no anyone else please.
.

Wtf

cedarbridge wrote:Ban minimodding tbh.

>Player sees another player breaking rules
>Like the good citizen I am report it to local gestapo via ahelp button
>Fuck off minimod
>Eat 24 hour ban for trying to help admins

Obviously what we should do is that when an admin has probable cause to believe a rule has been broken, he issues a perma ban and creates a thread on the forums with the listed evidence, leaving it to a headmin to make a ruling as judge jury and executioner and then modify the ban as necessary for their ruling.

This will lead to entirely reliable rulings.

Also a 7 month waiting period to get a "court date" but hey thats okay!

kevinz000 wrote:

J_Madison wrote:
It ain't happening, like if Kevinz bwoinked me for anything cat related. Yeah no anyone else please.
.

Wtf

Make a thousand valid bans and they'll call you Saegrimr but play one cat, nah no more; they'll call you a degenerate.

Arianya wrote:Obviously what we should do is that when an admin has probable cause to believe a rule has been broken, he issues a perma ban and creates a thread on the forums with the listed evidence, leaving it to a headmin to make a ruling as judge jury and executioner and then modify the ban as necessary for their ruling.

This will lead to entirely reliable rulings.

Also a 7 month waiting period to get a "court date" but hey thats okay!

Hope you posted bond with MSO on time or we repossess your computer.

cedarbridge wrote:

Arianya wrote:Obviously what we should do is that when an admin has probable cause to believe a rule has been broken, he issues a perma ban and creates a thread on the forums with the listed evidence, leaving it to a headmin to make a ruling as judge jury and executioner and then modify the ban as necessary for their ruling.

This will lead to entirely reliable rulings.

Also a 7 month waiting period to get a "court date" but hey thats okay!

Hope you posted bond with MSO on time or we repossess your computer.

lawyers have a role again

iamgoofball wrote:if one admin wont ban someone for something, the easiest solution is to wait for them to DC then ahelp it again for the next admin

make this bannable

I actually don't get what's wrong with getting a second opinion if an admin neglected to intervene?

As long as you don't conceal that you already talked with an admin, and that the previous ignored you... It might be weird of me to say, but I don't see much wrong in it.

Sligneris wrote: I actually don't get what's wrong with getting a second opinion if an admin neglected to intervene?

As long as you don't conceal that you already talked with an admin, and that the previous ignored you... It might be weird of me to say, but I don't see much wrong in it.

Just be sure not to violate rule 6.

In-game administration rulings are final.
Incidences of admin abuse, negligence or disputed rulings can be taken to the forums. 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. Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts in adminhelps will be dealt with harshly.

feem wrote:

Sligneris wrote: I actually don't get what's wrong with getting a second opinion if an admin neglected to intervene?

As long as you don't conceal that you already talked with an admin, and that the previous ignored you... It might be weird of me to say, but I don't see much wrong in it.

Just be sure not to violate rule 6.

In-game administration rulings are final.
Incidences of admin abuse, negligence or disputed rulings can be taken to the forums. 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. Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts in adminhelps will be dealt with harshly.

This is exactly what goof proposes. He wants a rule for a thing that already has a rule.

The only reason to shop for a "second opinion" is when you're so sure you're right that you need to try to find an admin to agree with you when the first one wouldn't.