/tg/Station 13

A complaint I've been hearing for a while, but that has spiked hard recently, is that the rules governing who gets to post in what thread set things up so that players are getting "cornered" by admins.

In an effort to improve that I've been proposing two changes to the rules regarding posts in FNR and seeing which people like more. They are:

1) Adding to/adjusting the definitions so that players can post in a thread regarding something they weren't involved in, IF IT IS TO BRING UP/POINT TO/HIGHLIGHT a rule, precedent, or piece of evidence that was missed that is relevant to the situation.

This does NOT include:
"This happened to me once and I didn't get banned for it" or the reverse "This happened to me once and I got banned for it."
"My opinion is…" or "I feel like…"

This WOULD cover:
"Rule 3 says…"
"These admins have always allowed…"
"Actually in the logs it says…"

This would allow players who are invested in the rules, have the experience, and can conduct themselves well to advocate in threads.

Alternatively:

2) Non-headmins follow the same restrictions for players when it comes to posting in threads. If they aren't involved or weren't a witness to the events, they cannot post.

This would level the playing field more between admin/player interactions and encourage admins to be more stringent in their bans.

So far solution 1) seems to be garnering more favor amongst everyone I've talked to about it, admins and players. Solution 1) is also exactly how I used to run FNR when I created the head of bans position and set out to clean up FNR in the first place.

Vote for which you prefer. Discuss.

Singulo already told you. There needs to be a "Do 1 and 2" option.

cedarbridge wrote:Singulo already told you. There needs to be a "Do 1 and 2" option.

...and I responded to that comment on Singulo. That's not an option.

An0n3 wrote:

cedarbridge wrote:Singulo already told you. There needs to be a "Do 1 and 2" option.

...and I responded to that comment on Singulo. That's not an option.

Feel free to mention why here then since I apparently missed it. I don't really see how the two are mutually exclusive.

Why isn't it an option?

Self-quoting from that thread:

That doesn't work because most admins by default are quoting some kind of precedent when they talk about how they enforce the rules. It doesn't do anything in effect because any admin saying "I've had this rule come up and I always do this…" would immediately satisfy the first rule.

It'd be too easy for them to satisfy rule 2 if rule 1 is on the table. If we add exceptions to make rule 1 even harder to satisfy, it just drives more players out. Lose/lose.

Yeah, I don't see any reason why we can't have both.

Which I like btw

Admins shouldn't be throwing in pointless comments in unrelated FNRs.

Ikarrus wrote:Yeah, I don't see any reason why we can't have both.

Which I like btw

Admins shouldn't be throwing in pointless comments in unrelated FNRs.

That's exactly why I suggested it first in the singulo thread.

You can merge both without causing problems, Anon. If it's relevant and useful, it'll be allowed to stay - admin or not. Simple as. :v

We already have guidelines in place that cover that, nobody should be posting in a thread just to say "You're shit" no matter who they are. But then again if there's actually a lot of notes and ban history to substantiate it, to say "You're shit: here's all this evidence of you being shit" checks out surprisingly well.

The sheer volume of new posts option 1 will add is going to be a lot of workload for people to proof, adding complaints that admins are breaking another new rule ontop of that is too much all at once.

I'd rather have Option 2 exist as a guideline than a hard rule while FNR stabilizes, then if it seems like a problem we're still having at that point, implement it afterward.

It's going to get worse before it gets better. There will be plenty enough arguments over what is relevant or not with just one change. I've been through this before, remember. I know what's coming.

I am slightly worried to what option one would bring about in terms of moderation.
Being a lot of opinion comes up in FNR threads (which has been deleted as per the current rules), but then this would really be down to admins/mods discretion. And discretion leads of a LOT of arguments and disagreements over where the line is.
For example if someone says something like "This fucking admin is always banning people FNR, here it shows another fine example by (insert actual relevant point)." Now is this useless information/shit posting or is it to be deemed relevant?

Relevant information from 3rd parties does come about but its pretty much on a par with the shit posts that come with it. There will be grey areas and there will be arguments as there already is with a fairly stead fast rule with no grey areas.

Both

on the same topic i dont think admin complaints should have the normal FNR rules at all
players should be able to discuss the relevant admin as long as what they say isnt off topic totally, like bringing up other times the admin showed X behavior or whatever

miggles wrote:on the same topic i dont think admin complaints should have the normal FNR rules at all
players should be able to discuss the relevant admin as long as what they say isnt off topic totally, like bringing up other times the admin showed X behavior or whatever

This.

peoplearestrange wrote:"This fucking admin is always banning people FNR, here it shows another fine example by (insert actual relevant point)."

If you can't present your point without being a jackass we don't have to listen to you.

I'd delete it.

i agree that people shouldnt be stupid yeah but that is a horrible argument
punish the person for being a dickweed for sure, maybe even edit their post or whatever. but dont just throw a legit admin complaint out the window because someone was a douchebag. that's just fucking retarded, seriously.

miggles wrote:i agree that people shouldnt be stupid yeah but that is a horrible argument
punish the person for being a dickweed for sure, maybe even edit their post or whatever. but dont just throw a legit admin complaint out the window because someone was a douchebag. that's just fucking retarded, seriously.

Furthermore what is relevant in an admin complaint isn't the same as what is relevant in an FNR.

In an FNR, calling someone an agressive asshole is totally uncalled for.

In an admin complaint it may not be eloquent but the ability for an admin to be personable, without this devolving into a popularity contest mind, is a major part of the job. If people are consistently insulting you and have nothing but mean things to say about you after an interaction with you it reflects on your personal conduct and image in some way. You almost certainly should delete their posts, people who hurl insults generally just create needless drama rather than a real discussion, but it is too easy to say "They are an idiot, just gunna delete" without realizing that if it happens too often or if normally decent people start devolving into assholes near you it means at the very least you are a figure of controversy, regardless of how poorly their behavior reflects on them. And you shouldn't lock the topic regardless, as the question is about an admin's conduct in a situation.

Also the An0n3 amendment makes perfect sense, it is a major part of the old peanut gallery rule. Players posting precedent and rules in no way can increase the amount of unjust rulings as long as that is what they are actually doing, and preventing them from doing so can only increase the amount of erroneous rulings. The reason people generally don't like the idea of players doing this is that it increases the amount of effort forum mods need to expend on FNR, but more importantly forces admins to be a lot less slapdash and adversarial, because the possibility of people rushing you down pointing out that their behavior is inconsistent with the rules is much more likely. The unban rate is rather directly linked with how much control admins personally get to have over FNR. The other part of the peanut gallery rule, the idea that FNR can be a place to discuss policy and rules during a ruling, often confused issues and wasn't as obvious a pure good as simply allowing players to act like legal clerks, and with the policy discussion thread it doesn't really need to exist as long as people can link to the threads in policy discussion in an FNR ruling. Such discussions can get messy and confusing and honestly just cause admins to not want to deal with controversy at all, which is just as antithetic to a good decision as refusing to listen to people pointing out facts about the server's operation.

Also, the idea of both banning admins from talking about cases and allowing players to do the same makes little sense if people are talking about just a blanket ban on them commenting. If we are talking about admins chiming in and saying "I know you, you did X" then it makes more sense, as the banning admin should mention such cases based on the players notes as part of the ban anyway. Otherwise it becomes a sort of reverse engineered reason for the ban rather than a way to actually justify the action taken in a decision, if it wasn't in the notes or in the admin's initial decision, it doesn't matter. Likewise another admin pointing to logs is sort of silly because it promotes cherry picking. Unless of course relevant logs are provided in the appeal on request, which isn't extremely hard to do and puts everyone on equal footing.

miggles wrote:i agree that people shouldnt be stupid yeah but that is a horrible argument
punish the person for being a dickweed for sure, maybe even edit their post or whatever. but dont just throw a legit admin complaint out the window because someone was a douchebag. that's just fucking retarded, seriously.

If you can't conduct yourself like an adult, for at least your time in here, then you aren't welcome in these forums.

If all that comes out of your mouth ever is SHITFUCK PISS CUNT SUCK A COCK you don't get to complain about however anyone treats you. Simple as that.

I don't care how badly someone griffs you or whatever an admin does to you if you can't communicate like an adult. Welcome to real life. Go out in the world and try to command any amount of respect or receive aid when you conduct yourself like that.

"this admin is a shit cunt heres proof: [link to logs of admin abusing their powers to benefit themselves in game]"
"nah sorry you said 'shit cunt' your complaint is invalid"
seriously?
its not about the person complaining, its about the admin
if the admin did something wrong, the problem is with them. whoever the messenger is is ENTIRELY irrelevant because its not their problem.

Yeah. People shouldn't behave like assholes but Miggles has it right.

The second you consider anything remotely fallacious as an excuse to completely dismiss something it becomes so easy to ignore any information that challenges your worldview. It is why the fallacy fallacy is a thing, the point is to allow you to dismiss irrelevant information, not what surrounds it. There is a difference between tolerating abuse and reading arguments couched in it.

I read every shitty thing Miggles says about me for example, not because it feels good but because sometimes he has a point. Stupid shit I do or say doesn't get a pass because Miggles was unduly mean to me. And I am just some random asshole on the forums. The stakes for an admin are higher.

dezzmont wrote: I read every shitty thing Miggles says about me for example, not because it feels good but because sometimes he has a point. Stupid shit I do or say doesn't get a pass because Miggles was unduly mean to me.

boom
here it is

yes, it would be great if everyone was civil all the time
but let's face it
it's a video game
people get fucking piiiiiiiiiiissed about those
the players and admins alike can get rowdy but dismissing legitimate points someone says just because they called you a bint or a weiner or something is stupid

danno wrote:

dezzmont wrote: I read every shitty thing Miggles says about me for example, not because it feels good but because sometimes he has a point. Stupid shit I do or say doesn't get a pass because Miggles was unduly mean to me.

boom
here it is

yes, it would be great if everyone was civil all the time
but let's face it
it's a video game
people get fucking piiiiiiiiiiissed about those
the players and admins alike can get rowdy but dismissing legitimate points someone says just because they called you a bint or a weiner or something is stupid

No one should have to have a "thick skin" to be an admin though. No one should have to put up with constant attacks. Though this is getting a little off topic.

I'm just not sure how information could be added without it becoming a peanut gallery again. Maybe if people PM'd admins or anyone involved with relevant information we wouldn't be in this situation. But Im not sure thats something we can really ask for or expect that.

Considering what admins are subjected to and have to put up with in game via ahelps and what not (I've seen it first hand), you would think there is a expectation the admins have thick skin.

If someone is giving good information, even if their way of expression is a bit aggressive, that in absolutely no way should be grounds to remove that post.

peoplearestrange wrote:

danno wrote:

dezzmont wrote: I read every shitty thing Miggles says about me for example, not because it feels good but because sometimes he has a point. Stupid shit I do or say doesn't get a pass because Miggles was unduly mean to me.

boom
here it is

yes, it would be great if everyone was civil all the time
but let's face it
it's a video game
people get fucking piiiiiiiiiiissed about those
the players and admins alike can get rowdy but dismissing legitimate points someone says just because they called you a bint or a weiner or something is stupid

No one should have to have a "thick skin" to be an admin though. No one should have to put up with constant attacks. Though this is getting a little off topic.

I'm just not sure how information could be added without it becoming a peanut gallery again. Maybe if people PM'd admins or anyone involved with relevant information we wouldn't be in this situation. But Im not sure thats something we can really ask for or expect that.

YAdmins are a management position that has the unholy trifecta: Enforcement power on other people, the ability to make creative decisions, and the perception that they have more rights than other people. Those 3 things cause people to get irrationally angry. To be an admin you need to be able to deal with that, and your ability to handle mean stuff being said about you in a professional capacity should be higher than the average poster, not lower. They should be able to handle controversy without loosing their cool. If they can't handle reading what some jerk said about them then that has very serious reprecusions for their ability to advocate for a decision that ends up being controversal, act against toxic players they like, or basically do anything that takes backbone. In essence if you can't handle it, sincerely can't handle it, then you honestly probably can't do your job well, because part of being an admin is pissing people off but still being the force of rationality in the room.

But lets be real, that probably isn't what is happening. I know a lot of the admins and they are not emotional wrecks unable to hold an opinion. The lure to delete posts like that stems from human bias, it is why the fallacy fallacy is a fallacy, it becomes too easy to dismiss arguments you don't agree with because most arguments contain some fallicious information wtihout being completely wrong and would result in no real information ever being exchanged. People should have the presence of mind to not be a rage filled ass on admin complaints or feedback or bans. It should reflect negatively on them. But the decisions made in those threads affect the entire community so it is a very bad place to decide to pack up your toys and go home. It is more about having the excuse to dismiss information that comes from someone who is arguably a jerk than it is about feels.

As for the original topic, it would be pretty easiy to avoid turning into a peanut gallery. People, not just players but people, should only be able to mention past decisions, rules, or behavior of the player or admin that is a matter of record. "Rule 2 actually is pretty clear on this being ok/bad." "Player was banned for this exact thing two weeks ago and appealed it in the same way." "Admin has a history of banning people for this and being told not to." The danger is really either forum mods being too extreme or too lax in regards to what is on topic, or some people being allowed to bring up irellevant information and some not. For example, admins should not be able to bring up things they saw if they are not in a player's notes or not in another FNR thread. Didn't act on it? It isn't relevant to the decision. Likewise players pointing out people have 'attitude problems' without that attitude actually being on trial somewhere else.

It is not a hard rule to enforce, but it takes dedication to do it fairly.

I am necroing this thread as a reminder that, despite the results of the poll, no consensus was ever brought to forum moderations and thus there was no change of rules; the 'An0n3 Amendment' was never ratified.

If people want to see this change in rules become a reality I'd suggest continuing the discussion with Headmins and getting them to come tell us their wishes regarding changing the FNR rules.

Jordie0608 wrote:I am necroing this thread as a reminder that, despite the results of the poll, no consensus was ever brought to forum moderations and thus there was no change of rules; the 'An0n3 Amendment' was never ratified.

If people want to see this change in rules become a reality I'd suggest continuing the discussion with Headmins and getting them to come tell us their wishes regarding changing the FNR rules.

You sure about that? A quick dip to the FNR rules shows me this:

THE AN0N3 AMENDMENT IS IN EFFECT

Adding to/adjusting the definitions so that players can post in a thread regarding something they weren't involved in, IF IT IS TO BRING UP/POINT TO/HIGHLIGHT a rule, precedent, or piece of evidence that was missed that is relevant to the situation.

This does NOT include:
"This happened to me once and I didn't get banned for it" or the reverse "This happened to me once and I got banned for it."
"My opinion is…" or "I feel like…"

This WOULD cover:
"Rule 3 says…"
"These admins have always allowed…"
"Actually in the logs it says…"

This would allow players who are invested in the rules, have the experience, and can conduct themselves well to advocate in threads.

Given that it's in the FNR rules post - it was never contested at that - it can be safely assumed by anybody reading in passing that yes, in fact, it has been ratified.

:^)

Jordie0608 wrote:I am necroing this thread as a reminder that, despite the results of the poll, no consensus was ever brought to forum moderations and thus there was no change of rules; the 'An0n3 Amendment' was never ratified.

If people want to see this change in rules become a reality I'd suggest continuing the discussion with Headmins and getting them to come tell us their wishes regarding changing the FNR rules.

This has been discussed to death, it was my impression that no counterpoint had been brought to the table and that everything was hunky-dory.

If you have issue with it, let's discuss it in the mod forum or bring it to an0n's attention instead of passive-aggressively deleting posts in FNR.

The explanation behind this is a bit long-winded and makes me sound machiavellian but, tl;dr I knew already and was being picky about the meaning of ratification to make a point to the headmins "for the greater good".

Well its all offical and stuff now. So gonna go ahead and lock this as its done and dusted