/tg/Station 13

If someone was in the round and goes, "I didn't see what they did there, but they did this (un?)related shitty thing," is that a relevant post? I'm iffy, but leaning to 'yes.'
If someone was not in the round and goes, "They did a similar thing in this round, too," is that a relevant post? I'm definitely leaning yes on this one.
If someone was not in the round and goes, "I didn't see what they did there, but they did this (un?)related shitty thing," is that a relevant post? I'm thinking not, with case-by-case "It's sort of related" potential. There's an obvious difference between 'But he sometimes steals the flash from the arrivals checkpoint' and 'I thought he was supposed to be permabanned for metagaming?'

I'd like other people to contribute on this topic but keep in mind:
This is not so people can stenograph. That's a different subject. This is about what IS relevant to an IMMEDIATE, ONGOING ban request or appeal for actions taken in a specific round.

i got warned for posting relevant stuff

Right now the rules that we have, and that we're enforcing, are that you have to be involved in that specific incident. I think we should change that because
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=209

We have here demonstrations of:

http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2144 - A relevant post from someone "not involved" - a time was provided, so logs can easily support the claims in it
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2155 - A relevant post from someone "not involved" - a time was provided, so logs can easily support the claims in it
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2204 - A relevant post from someone involved that apparently still got a warning in the moderator panel?

http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2196 - An irrelevant post from someone "not involved"
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2187 - An irrelevant post from someone actually not involved that is fully aware they're breaking forum rules. :I
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2210 - A post too vague to be relevant from someone not involved without anything that can be specifically pulled for logs

I'm of the opinion that the first three types should be allowed and the last three should not.

The problem with a lot of ban requests is that, by nature of the A-Help/Ban Req system, A-Helps handle specific events while Ban Requests handle broad strokes, repeated offenses, and general shittery. Very rarely does ban requests handle a one-off because there's no admins on. You can't apply "related to a specific incident" to general shittery, because there is often no specific incident.

I'd say, if they come forward with a relevant incident and a general timeframe, or otherwise make some sort of effortpost, allow it. If they're just going to shitpost, well...

Scaredofshadows has said something about trying to fix this particular situation before. At least in a previous discussion

Pandarsenic wrote:Right now the rules that we have, and that we're enforcing, are that you have to be involved in that specific incident. I think we should change that because
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=209

We have here demonstrations of:

http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2144 - A relevant post from someone "not involved" - a time was provided, so logs can easily support the claims in it
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2155 - A relevant post from someone "not involved" - a time was provided, so logs can easily support the claims in it
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2204 - A relevant post from someone involved that apparently still got a warning in the moderator panel?

http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2196 - An irrelevant post from someone "not involved"
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2187 - An irrelevant post from someone actually not involved that is fully aware they're breaking forum rules. :I
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2210 - A post too vague to be relevant from someone not involved without anything that can be specifically pulled for logs

I'm of the opinion that the first three types should be allowed and the last three should not.

Here's the thing. The rules are broken on this. I'm of the opinion that EVERYONE can contribute constructively, some people do not. Its lazy to say only admins and "people involved" can post and that others cannot post constructive posts or talk about a players ban. I can post a whole bit about this but honestly it's becoming just not worth it to argue.Some people shit posted and we're all paying for it now.

The idea is that Ban Appeal/Request threads should be about whether something happened, and leaving the details of what to do about it to admins to handle, though, no?

Pandarsenic wrote:The idea is that Ban Appeal/Request threads should be about whether something happened, and leaving the details of what to do about it to admins to handle, though, no?

The forum is to discuss bans, appeals, or create a request to ban. Administrators not involved often post in threads about another admins bans, and often it is constructive. Users can also do this as well. This isn't a admin conspiracy or a admin only club, it should be a productive and constructive forum to discuss and mediate bans using the information available.

People are going to start to get Mad if we get subjective about what is or isn't a shitpost, though.

Pandarsenic wrote:People are going to start to get Mad if we get subjective about what is or isn't a shitpost, though.

So denying them the ability to post and being subjective about "who is involved" is better? That's why I said you need a rule change on here. There's a happy medium somewhere but this isn't it. I'd prefer being able to post and someone getting butthurt over what constitutes a "constructive post" rather than not being able to post at all.

For appeals, involved means you're either the guy who got banned, or someone who either saw what happened in the round or was directly involved with/affected by the situation. If you have to ask, you're probably not involved.

Ban requests are more liberal, if you have useful information to add or have seen similar behavior from the person before, feel free to post. The important thing for both ban appeals and requests is that you focus on posting facts, and not opinions. Refer to this helpful educational game for a crash course: http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

if you have useful information to add or have seen similar behavior from the person before, feel free to post/

But I got warned for just that.

elyina wrote:For appeals, involved means you're either the guy who got banned, or someone who either saw what happened in the round or was directly involved with/affected by the situation. If you have to ask, you're probably not involved.

Ban requests are more liberal, if you have useful information to add or have seen similar behavior from the person before, feel free to post. The important thing for both ban appeals and requests is that you focus on posting facts, and not opinions. Refer to this helpful educational game for a crash course: http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/

The issue here is that in the most recent Ban Request thread, nearly every single post got flagged for a warning (Including my own, even if it doesn't show it - I've PM'd Hornygranny regarding this) including the ones that did add helpful information to the request, namely that the person in question wasn't playing to the standards that we expect on the servers.

I think it would be helpful for HG to give his two cents here about why he did this in the first place, unless it happened to be an automated thing with his name attached to it for whatever reason. It all seems cut and dry what posts are and are not 'valid' for the request.

The policy sticky in the Ban Request forum needs to have it's wording tweaked a bit if we're allowed to bring up objective past examples of similar behavior for the request. Several instances of bad behavior on the part of a player is much, much easier to spot and make a judgement call upon than just one.

Pandarsenic wrote: http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2187 - An irrelevant post from someone actually not involved that is fully aware they're breaking forum rules. :I

The above seemed somewhat relivent to that request, as it was stating they did the same thing under a different key.
The last quote also looks somewhat relivent, atleast a small part of it does.


And yah, the current setting for this seems a tad... over excessive.

According to SoS this forum is for constructive opinions, and constructive criticism is welcome here.


When we act like users are shit and that they have nothing to contribute that is elitism and frankly bullshit. A admin's opinion should be no better or worse than any other player because when we face it, we're all people on the internet playing a 2d space game trying to enjoy ourselves. Admins are volunteers who despite their power structures are people who are just there to help the host moderate the game and enforce the rules when necessary, this shouldn't be some massive power struggle for the ability for someone to voice their opinion. Players opinions and contributions are good for the community.

Also I find it rather hilarious that Admins post in bans where they weren't involved (and sometimes have nothing to contribute) and get away with it.

420goslingboy69 wrote:i got warned for posting relevant stuff

Please provide a link to the orignal post. Also, create an admin complaint about who warned you.

Rockdtben wrote:

420goslingboy69 wrote:i got warned for posting relevant stuff

Please provide a link to the orignal post. Also, create an admin complaint about who warned you.

http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2144 - A relevant post from someone "not involved" - a time was provided, so logs can easily support the claims in it
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2155 - A relevant post from someone "not involved" - a time was provided, so logs can easily support the claims in it
http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic. ... 2210#p2204 - A relevant post from someone involved that apparently still got a warning in the moderator panel?

I'm the 2nd one

All three of those posts should have been in their own Ban Request thread. Please create a new ban request thread. IF they are related to the specific incident then yes, but from what I've read it looks like you've been dealing with that person much longer and should make ban requests for that person.

Seeing 5+ threads about the same person definitely shows that there is a cause for investigation.

I misclicked KingLouis instead of the other guy when warning people. Regarding the topic, do not post "Yeah this guy was shit X round" instead of posting your own complaint. If what they did is actually actionable, we will investigate it and handle it. Making a new topic for each infraction will help us keep track of their conduct better (multiple notes) than one ban for multiple infractions.

Rockdtben wrote:All three of those posts should have been in their own Ban Request thread. Please create a new ban request thread. IF they are related to the specific incident then yes, but from what I've read it looks like you've been dealing with that person much longer and should make ban requests for that person.

Seeing 5+ threads about the same person definitely shows that there is a cause for investigation.

5 threads? Thats just ridiculous. Just for a comment of "I saw that person doing x".

Rockdtben wrote:All three of those posts should have been in their own Ban Request thread. Please create a new ban request thread. IF they are related to the specific incident then yes, but from what I've read it looks like you've been dealing with that person much longer and should make ban requests for that person.

Seeing 5+ threads about the same person definitely shows that there is a cause for investigation.

Seeing 5+ threads about the same person will be incredibly annoying and inefficient.

No, it would be much more efficient for our purposes. Each incident can be judged on its own merit rather than as part of a bandwagon, and handled independently, possibly by multiple admins.

Alright well why don't you start by separating EACH instance posted in the forums HG instead of warning them inappropriately?

Instead of saying Please do not post to ban-related threads you're not involved with, just move it to a new thread. Also inform the community of your new policy. If this many people are "fucking up" on your forums then at least state what you want to see in the rules.

I also stand by my previous statement that the rules need to be changed since this shouldn't be a admins only club.

What was wrong with the Steno system from the old forum? Aside from the lack of consistent moderators it work fantastically well in allowing the public to voice their opinion without diluting the actual thread itself. I would go as far to say that the old Steno system was the best system for this we ever had.

Steelpoint wrote:What was wrong with the Steno system from the old forum? Aside from the lack of consistent moderators it work fantastically well in allowing the public to voice their opinion without diluting the actual thread itself. I would go as far to say that the old Steno system was the best system for this we ever had.

I talked to SoS about this. He said he'd look into it and things should change soon.

cultist-chan wrote:Alright well why don't you start by separating EACH instance posted in the forums HG instead of warning them inappropriately?

Instead of saying Please do not post to ban-related threads you're not involved with, just move it to a new thread. Also inform the community of your new policy. If this many people are "fucking up" on your forums then at least state what you want to see in the rules.

I also stand by my previous statement that the rules need to be changed since this shouldn't be a admins only club.

It's up to the player to create a ban request. There's nothing new about the policy or inappropriate about me enforcing it, the rules are very clear.

Hornygranny wrote:

cultist-chan wrote:Alright well why don't you start by separating EACH instance posted in the forums HG instead of warning them inappropriately?

Instead of saying Please do not post to ban-related threads you're not involved with, just move it to a new thread. Also inform the community of your new policy. If this many people are "fucking up" on your forums then at least state what you want to see in the rules.

I also stand by my previous statement that the rules need to be changed since this shouldn't be a admins only club.

It's up to the player to create a ban request. There's nothing new about the policy or inappropriate about me enforcing it, the rules are very clear.

Thats not how we did it in the past. I can give you specific examples if you want, however since Errorage isn't on speaking terms with you I really can't link you. Blaming the messenger because it doesn't suit the new forums isn't good.

We NEVER had this problem in the past and this is a new policy that the new forum seems hellbent on enforcing. So at least cut the playerbase some slack post your intentions clearly and help out the playerbase instead of giving them blanket warnings.

1. If you are not an admin or directly involved with the ban request(You are the one being ban requested, you saw what happened, you were his victim, etc.) then do not post in the ban request

How is this not clear?

Hornygranny wrote:

1. If you are not an admin or directly involved with the ban request(You are the one being ban requested, you saw what happened, you were his victim, etc.) then do not post in the ban request

How is this not clear?

Don't size 200 please thats uncalled for and immature. Also that has nothing to do with the current situation. We're talking about ban requests and how people are TALKING about specific people that deserve a ban. So you shouldn't have to have threads like this

• HG is picking his nose ban he
• HG doesn't have his hair right ban he
• HG looked at me funny ban he

We've always had that under a forum and said something like "Bann HG for xxx" and then people chime in.

That's literally the first rule of the Ban Request forum. You don't seem to understand my point: Any actionable complaint deserves its own thread; anything that does not deserve its own thread is not actionable and should not be posted anywhere.

Hornygranny wrote:That's literally the first rule of the Ban Request forum. You don't seem to understand my point: Any actionable complaint deserves its own thread; anything that does not deserve its own thread is not actionable and should not be posted anywhere.

http://www.ss13.eu/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=50

contacted errorage

http://www.ss13.eu/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4088 look at the old threads now back to me. See the problems with the new forums NOW back to me. Your arguments are now diamonds.

We didn't post multiple threads on a single person, we just compounded it. This is a new policy or somehow it is become a more draconian interpretation..

I didn't claim the policy wasn't new, merely that it is indeed policy. Where you see problems, I see solutions, and I am utterly unconvinced by your arguments.

There are things that by themselves may not fully constitute an actionable complaint but taken together create a pattern of behavior that is counter to what belongs on the server. The whole "toeing the line" thing, if you will. As a result, many legitimate griefers evade bans because every instance of their grief/dickery is so minor on its own that it would be silly to create a ban request/ahelp for it alone. But when they goof and do something that is bad enough on its own, it is absolutely the time to point out their other instances of griefing. I can't think of a better time.

Example: A year or so ago there was a griefer from Nox who came to /tg/ called Bee York. Unsurprisingly, she continued to grief here. I was involved in an incident where she table-trapped me and stripped me naked (or something like that, it was a long time ago), someone (not me) made a ban request for that, and though people in the thread pointed out her long history of doing shit like this, the general sentiment was that it wasn't worth a ban request thread on its own and she continued to grief. It was months until she was actually banned, and the ban (I think, again, it was a long time ago) was largely contingent upon that history. If people aren't allowed to bring things like this up, it only protects griefers.

The downside to this is that it can turn into a witch-hunt/pile-on on players who are disliked. It can also lead to using overturned bans / personal grudges. against a player. (Fuck, it can lead to "YOU FIVE PEOPLE ARE BANNED IN A PURGE OF SHIT DUE TO A HISTORY OF INCIDENTS I WILL NOT NAME." Ahem.) But generally when this happens, the shitposting turns into actual shitposting, and it is usually obvious.

Hornygranny wrote:I didn't claim the policy wasn't new, merely that it is indeed policy. Where you see problems, I see solutions, and I am utterly unconvinced by your arguments.

I mean seriously its new and you should be informing players of your NEW policy. Shouldn't you be helping people here post correctly instead of giving them grief? That's what I basically said before. Move their arguments to a new post instead of warning them.

Alright well why don't you start by separating EACH instance posted in the forums HG instead of warning them inappropriately?

Instead of saying Please do not post to ban-related threads you're not involved with, just move it to a new thread. Also inform the community of your new policy. If this many people are "fucking up" on your forums then at least state what you want to see in the rules.

I also stand by my previous statement that the rules need to be changed since this shouldn't be a admins only club.

Ban Request section rules (READ BEFORE POSTING)

This is stickied and locked on the top of the board.

Rockdtben wrote:All three of those posts should have been in their own Ban Request thread. Please create a new ban request thread. IF they are related to the specific incident then yes, but from what I've read it looks like you've been dealing with that person much longer and should make ban requests for that person.

Seeing 5+ threads about the same person definitely shows that there is a cause for investigation.

Hornygranny wrote:I misclicked KingLouis instead of the other guy when warning people. Regarding the topic, do not post "Yeah this guy was shit X round" instead of posting your own complaint. If what they did is actually actionable, we will investigate it and handle it. Making a new topic for each infraction will help us keep track of their conduct better (multiple notes) than one ban for multiple infractions.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait. Seriously? Really? I should make a ban request any and every time I see somebody commit a minor slip up, just in case it may come into play half a year later, or else those incidents become void unless, by luck, an admin who may or may not be related to the discussed incident remembers them, too?

Now, I'm not an expert, but I somehow doubt it will help readability of the Ban Requests forum. I mean, I'd understand this logic if we had community advocates on this forum, who could be contacted and then could chime in on the incident in an organized manner, instead of a bunch of people posting their stuff, but the position was intentionally phased out. So, the only option you are leaving here is to make a separate ban request.

Oh, right:

>Any actionable complaint deserves its own thread; anything that does not deserve its own thread is not actionable and should not be posted anywhere.

That's literally just enabling toeing the line. Nothing else. It helps nobody, except people who take a position that involves dealing with people, but don't really want to deal with people.

A bunch of information in the same thread regarding separate instances can cause confusion. Make separate threads for separate issues, so that those issues can be dealt with/noted individually rather than "page four 5th post down about this one time".

It's an organizational thing. People will see "Wow, this guy has five ban requests for five separate incidents" rather than "Joe Blow only has one ban request, maybe he's not that much of a shitler after all".

Same thing as a support helpdesk, create different tickets/threads for different issues, as they all need to be investigated individually. If two people FNR the same person for the same incident, we'll merge the threads together, otherwise they're welcome to post in the thread they were directly involved with. A single thread where ten different people go "this guy was a shitler in this other round too" doesn't help anything.

The community chose to have clearly defined rules rather than rely on the subjective judgement of the admins. If someone is exhibiting a pattern of problematic behavior that may not fall clearly outside the bounds of the rules, I encourage you to take a note of those times and make a ban request.

Stephie wrote: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait. Seriously? Really? I should make a ban request any and every time I see somebody commit a minor slip up, just in case it may come into play half a year later, or else those incidents become void unless, by luck, an admin who may or may not be related to the discussed incident remembers them, too?

Now, I'm not an expert, but I somehow doubt it will help readability of the Ban Requests forum. I mean, I'd understand this logic if we had community advocates on this forum, who could be contacted and then could chime in on the incident in an organized manner, instead of a bunch of people posting their stuff, but the position was intentionally phased out. So, the only option you are leaving here is to make a separate ban request.

Oh, right:

>Any actionable complaint deserves its own thread; anything that does not deserve its own thread is not actionable and should not be posted anywhere.

That's literally just enabling toeing the line. Nothing else. It helps nobody, except people who take a position that involves dealing with people, but don't really want to deal with people.

Yeah I mean seriously when Bee York was on our servers they did TONS of dickish things that I thought were just "dickish" but I fail to chronicle each one. I can still recall a few but I'm not going to post each and every dick move someone makes. There are tons of shit players and I'm not going to say "Two beard power gamed x round". I really don't care that much to whine about every round. If I was such a cry baby your forum would be overflowing.

Most admin actions happen in the game itself. If someone is consistently bad in some way, it will not fall on the forum users to make ban requests for them, because that person will be getting disciplined in game.

1) Bee York provides a pretty solid case study for an instance where this system broke down; Bee York was someone that was widely known by pretty much everyone on Sibyl as a line-toeing assface but no single person KNEW how much time he dedicated to doing not-quite-actionable things and he didn't get enough notes to get rekt for it until the perma came down.

2) 3) I think that if a Ban Request comes up, it should be VERY MUCH considered relevant if people go "If this is actionable now, I have specific instances of where you can get logs of them doing it at other times." People don't Ban Request things because they assume they're handled in-game when they're often not.

Responding with magic marker because why not

Pandarsenic wrote:1) Bee York provides a pretty solid case study for an instance where this system broke down; Bee York was someone that was widely known by pretty much everyone on Sibyl as a line-toeing assface but no single person KNEW how much time he dedicated to doing not-quite-actionable things and he didn't get enough notes to get rekt for it until the perma came down.

Some of us more than others. You'd have the same problem with the system now, probably even more so as it discourages people who aren't whiners from posting.

2)

Spoiler:

When Bee York's perma came down, he started occasionally participating in shit like raids on other servers, signing up on our servers with new keys and trying to release singulo, etc., and because I axed him for that he sometimes makes new Steam accounts to spam me with group invites. Bee York was worse than anyone had really realized until LONG after the fact.

Bee york was caught pretty much by himself admitting his crimes. He even made youtube videos about it. Sometimes your own hubris ruins you

3) I think that if a Ban Request comes up, it should be VERY MUCH considered relevant if people go "If this is actionable now, I have specific instances of where you can get logs of them doing it at other times." People don't Ban Request things because they assume they're handled in-game when they're often not.

EXACTLY.

Hornygranny wrote:Most admin actions happen in the game itself. If someone is consistently bad in some way, it will not fall on the forum users to make ban requests for them, because that person will be getting disciplined in game.

Admins aren't all knowing and sometimes they miss repeat behavior. Admins are human, and humans mess up sometimes. Again using the example of Bee, if he was this bad in the past he should have been banned earlier. We shouldn't have two beards and his ilk but we're human and we can't catch everything. Thats why players who aren't admins can keep a eye on them and feel free to report problems and contribute to threads.

If the vast majority of players fucking want something, why is not being put on the forums because a few select admins don't want it?

Hornygranny wrote:The community chose to have clearly defined rules rather than rely on the subjective judgement of the admins. If someone is exhibiting a pattern of problematic behavior that may not fall clearly outside the bounds of the rules, I encourage you to take a note of those times and make a ban request.

Is that the same community that also chose to not have Stenography and to abolish community advocates? I'm honestly wondering, because maybe there was a community vote that I missed, which recently added this rule? Or are we talking about this community here?

Jeb wrote:Same thing as a support helpdesk, create different tickets/threads for different issues, as they all need to be investigated individually. If two people FNR the same person for the same incident, we'll merge the threads together, otherwise they're welcome to post in the thread they were directly involved with. A single thread where ten different people go "this guy was a shitler in this other round too" doesn't help anything.

But people aren't tickets. Problem players are not bugs that you review and fix if necessary. Things like one of tunderchief's ban appeals are a good example of that, since most of the actual discussion of the incident happened in Peanuts, by people who had zero relation to the incident itself.

Moreover, is it better if you have the opposite - 10 different threads where people say that a person was shitler in a specific round, which an admin has to review individually, and as impartially as possible, since, like, apparently, the community resoundingly wants to eliminate any and all subjectivity (and, apparently, we finally listen to the community at last)?

I think the idea for ban requests is that handling it may simply be adding a player note. It's way more likely for a player with a 10-item player note list any admin can read very quickly to get a proper punishment than a 10-item, 5 page ban request thread read by maybe 4 admins. So I would argue that such threads should def be treated as issue reports.

Basically, you shouldn't wait for someone else to make a ban request. If you have a problem with a player, make a ban request right away. Actually, I think ban request is kind of a shitty name. It should be more like Reports or something, because not every report should result in a ban. This is to encourage reporting line-toeing instead of going "well that behavior may have been shit, but was it really banworthy? Nah"

MisterPerson wrote:I think the idea for ban requests is that handling it may simply be adding a player note. It's way more likely for a player with a 10-item player note list any admin can read very quickly to get a proper punishment than a 10-item, 5 page ban request thread read by maybe 4 admins. So I would argue that such threads should def be treated as issue reports.

Basically, you shouldn't wait for someone else to make a ban request. If you have a problem with a player, make a ban request right away. Actually, I think ban request is kind of a shitty name. It should be more like Reports or something, because not every report should result in a ban. This is to encourage reporting line-toeing instead of going "well that behavior may have been shit, but was it really banworthy? Nah"

So we're changing what we used to do without votes because of preferences of a few. Why did the community vote on this issue? In the old system anyone could make a ban "report or request" anyways. You never had to wait before. All that Niknak says you could have done in the old system as well... Unless someone is really whiny someone (the players) isn't going to use the new system. I mean seriously do you report every time someone reads WGW?

Lets not forget the purpose of these forums, its to HELP the community and let players relate information that will help the administrators. The impression that I get is that some administrators feel that they either don't really want to deal with the community, or feel they are so far above the community that they feel they no longer feel that they should have to interact with the community.

Stephie wrote:

Hornygranny wrote:The community chose to have clearly defined rules rather than rely on the subjective judgement of the admins. If someone is exhibiting a pattern of problematic behavior that may not fall clearly outside the bounds of the rules, I encourage you to take a note of those times and make a ban request.

Is that the same community that also chose to not have Stenography and to abolish community advocates? I'm honestly wondering, because maybe there was a community vote that I missed, which recently added this rule? Or are we talking about this community here?

I appreciate your snide commentary, but you're off the mark. The players very clearly advocated for explicit game rules in the last policy forum, and forum rules are not and have never been subject to community approval.

But people aren't tickets. Problem players are not bugs that you review and fix if necessary. Things like one of tunderchief's ban appeals are a good example of that, since most of the actual discussion of the incident happened in Peanuts, by people who had zero relation to the incident itself.

I don't agree with you. There have been players that absolutely were issues to review and fix.

Moreover, is it better if you have the opposite - 10 different threads where people say that a person was shitler in a specific round, which an admin has to review individually, and as impartially as possible, since, like, apparently, the community resoundingly wants to eliminate any and all subjectivity (and, apparently, we finally listen to the community at last)?

Did you not read the rules? Those ten people would all be allowed to post in one ban request.

cultist-chan wrote:So we're changing what we used to do without votes because of preferences of a few. Why did the community vote on this issue? In the old system anyone could make a ban "report or request" anyways. You never had to wait before. All that Niknak says you could have done in the old system as well... Unless someone is really whiny someone (the players) isn't going to use the new system. I mean seriously do you report every time someone reads WGW?

Reading WGW is not an administrative issue.

Lets not forget the purpose of these forums, its to HELP the community and let players relate information that will help the administrators. The impression that I get is that some administrators feel that they either don't really want to deal with the community, or feel they are so far above the community that they feel they no longer feel that they should have to interact with the community.

You are being told by the administration how you can relay that information in the most efficient and clear manner possible. That's why the rules are what they are.

Hornygranny wrote: Reading WGW is not an administrative issue. are.

I was being ironic.

Hornygranny wrote: You are being told by the administration how you can relay that information in the most efficient and clear manner possible. That's why the rules are what they are.

What I'm being told is make multiple posts and whine each time I'm killed or mistreated. It just doesn't make sense.

Its interesting how the "administration" refers to a select group of people who are overestimating the policy or being lazy in the best of cases,
or... in the worst of cases are treating others poorly to make them feel greater than others, and through contempt, ill-treating others and condescension deceive themselves into thinking they are some form of superior being that an do no wrong.

cultist-chan wrote: What I'm being told is make multiple posts and whine each time I'm killed. It just doesn't make sense.

That's not even remotely close to what I said. If you get killed and there are no admins around to handle it and they aren't confirmed as an antagonist at the end of the round, then yes, you should post on the forums.

cultist-chan wrote: Its interesting how the "administration" refers to a select group of people now-days.

Yes, it refers to in-game admins. Are you being ironic again?

Yes, it refers to in-game admins. Are you being ironic again?

If it was in game admins then the situation would have been settled when I asked the headmins about it.

HG wrote: He's(Deutryn) in charge of in-game policy. I was part of many discussions that you were not when this forum was created and we were determining how it would be run, and it was very conclusively decided that we would not have stenography/peanut gallery. Deuryn is absolutely the last word when it comes to in-game issues, but that has nothing to do with the forum rules or hierarchy. That's been true since the original forum.