/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:05 pm**

I have seen several Ahelps the past time where admins added these phrases to notes or bans where during the appeals the hostilities of those statements seemed rather....embellished.

I made to thread to discuss the issue because it seems that the pure act of disagreeing with an admin is now seen as being "combative".

I would like to ask for there to be some standards for when admins describe an Ahelp as actually hostile.

Posted: **Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:31 pm**

CPTANT wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:05 pmI would like to ask for there to be some standards for when admins describe an Ahelp as actually hostile.

What standards do you propose?

Posted: **Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:49 pm**

Not saying these things without actually serious insults being issued would be a good start.

Posted: **Wed Dec 14, 2022 3:38 pm**

Hostile is more than 'rude words'.

<30 minute ticket>
Player: WELL THEN I guess in future i'll go around maxcapping everyone i meet who looks at me wrong as a security officer because THATS OBVIOUSLY THE CONCLUSION OF THIS TICKET
Me: ..... blah blah no precedent for future actions, enjoy that ban, blah blah

Countless more examples, thats just the most common strain of unnecessarily combative interaction.

Still, good luck writing a policy for that. Perhaps we can later on use it as a guide for players on "how to interact with other players".

(Also as an admin I don't think I've ever paid attention to such comments on a note, they're not hugely relevant to incident handling, though might become so if the players entire record comes under review for some reason, in which case the tickets themselves are likely to be investigated anyway, it's more just a marker than an actionable thing)

Posted: **Wed Dec 14, 2022 6:06 pm**

From what I've seen, any such standards would be extremely difficult to enforce and generally not worth the headache. Just treat the admins like human beings instead of McDonalds employees.

Posted: **Wed Dec 14, 2022 6:27 pm**

Okay, to be fair, this thread isn't actually entirely without merit. I came here from Fulp, and over there, disagreeing with the admin in any way, no matter how mild, is treated as being combative and hostile, and used to further punish players (it's one of the lesser reasons I left there). CPTANT could be a fellow fulp refugee who wants to ward off a degeneration into that sort of behavior, with this admittedly absurd handling of situation from this admin.

Posted: **Thu Dec 15, 2022 1:00 am**

CPTANT wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:05 pm I have seen several Ahelps the past time where admins added these phrases to notes or bans where during the appeals the hostilities of those statements seemed rather....embellished.

I made to thread to discuss the issue because it seems that the pure act of disagreeing with an admin is now seen as being "combative".

I would like to ask for there to be some standards for when admins describe an Ahelp as actually hostile.

What does calling people argumentative, combative, or extremely hostile because they are difficult people accomplish?

Does it deal with the behavior that warranted ahelping?

Is it going to piss people off further than someone already managed to do?

Is it going to make someone want to comply?

Is it going to create rapport?

Is it going to lift people up to be better?

I ask all of this as a difficult person myself.

Posted: **Thu Dec 15, 2022 1:14 am**

admins should not be increasing the punishment for players because they felt they were being accused of something they didn't do

everyone knows when the admin PMs you it's because the admin thinks you did something wrong no matter what they say or claim, so why should players not be allowed to be defensive?

Posted: **Thu Dec 15, 2022 1:51 am**

I don't feel it's wrong to label someone any of the above if they're acting like a child in an ahelp; that being said imo it's incredibly hard to define a standard for behavior that 'crosses the line' and doubt any reasonable policy could be put in place. I don't see it as any thing that could help resolve tickets amicably, but certainly a good heads up for someone resolving future issues with said individuals.

datorangebottle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 6:06 pm Just treat the admins like human beings instead of McDonalds employees.

more of this

Posted: **Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:29 am**

I get where you're coming from, but I think most admins and players intuitively get what it means to be argumentative or hostile in ahelps. If some hugboxmin gave someone a bad note because a player disagreed with their assessment of a situation in-game, the player should appeal and senior admins should course-correct so the admin doesn't keep making the same mistake.

Handling missteps like that on a case-by-case basis is all one can do, really.

Posted: **Thu Dec 15, 2022 6:42 am**

i like to mention when players are exceptional in the good way instead of when players are about how i expect them to be

Posted: **Thu Dec 15, 2022 1:06 pm**

Terms like argumentative, combative, etc. should be disallowed in the banning reason. It's a very opinionated term in all but the most egregious, obvious cases. That may cause the next admin to unintentionally prejudge the player in question if they were ever to get bwoinked for something else later.

Does calling someone hostile serve any purpose for future admins handling that player? Or is it used because the banning reason is too weak to stand on its own?

Posted: **Thu Dec 15, 2022 1:21 pm**

iamgoofball wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 1:14 am admins should not be increasing the punishment for players because they felt they were being accused of something they didn't do

everyone knows when the admin PMs you it's because the admin thinks you did something wrong no matter what they say or claim, so why should players not be allowed to be defensive?

Or because they want your side of a story.
Or because you're a head of staff and they want to run an event.
Or because you showed up in the combat logs of someone that was being a shitter and wanted to know if you were wronged too.
Or because there's a fun new feature that needs testing.
Or
Or
Or...

Posted: **Thu Dec 15, 2022 1:22 pm**

I think it's better to just use objective terms instead of subjective. "called me a *****" is objective, "was hostile" is subjective. Because what ***** actually was matters, there is a difference between calling someone a kitten and calling them a turd.

Posted: **Thu Dec 15, 2022 3:54 pm**

CPTANT wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 1:22 pm I think it's better to just use objective terms instead of subjective. "called me a *****" is objective, "was hostile" is subjective. Because what ***** actually was matters, there is a difference between calling someone a kitten and calling them a turd.

Everyone is better off focusing on behaviors rather than attitudes.

Bad attitudes are typical of difficult people.

You can expect people to be cooperative in the end, but they don't have to like it or just comply freely.

Posted: **Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:39 pm**

Don't be objectively a massive cunt in an adminhelp and you won't get called combative.

Being slightly rude or curt in a ticket is one thing. Losing your shit and insulting everyone involved is another.

Posted: **Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:49 pm**

Vekter wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:39 pm Don't be objectively a massive cunt in an adminhelp and you won't get called combative.

Being slightly rude or curt in a ticket is one thing. Losing your shit and insulting everyone involved is another.

01:02:30: Ticket Opened by-sightld2: You've been spoken to before about repeatedly griefing this exact person. There's no reason for you as an assistant to randomly pie anyone to begin with.
01:03:14: Reply from-ferrolocus: I threw a pie into someone's face how is that griefing
01:04:27: Reply from-sightld2: How is it not? What is it beyond screwing with someone? But again, you were already warned about doing this sort of thing, to the exact same person.
01:05:42: Reply from-ferrolocus: Are you not allowed to screw with someone? A pie to the face is the most basic thing, I've had pies randomly thrown in my face more times then I can count when did it become an issue?
01:06:47: Reply from-sightld2: The largest point, is that you've been told off for repeatedly doing this to the same target. Last time you got away with saying "How is two pranks in 20 minutes consistent." At this point, it very clearly is consistently, targetted griefing.
01:07:47: Reply from-ferrolocus: how is three pranks over the course of days consistant, targetted griefing?
01:08:15: Reply from-ferrolocus: especially when one of them is LITERALLY a pie to the face
01:09:07: Reply from-sightld2: Even then, that kind of minor grief is reserved for clowns. You're not a clown, your an assisstant, going out of your way to get a pie, and again, target the exact same player.
01:09:28: Reply from-sightld2: but for the record. Yes. Three times in days is a pattern.
01:11:21: Reply from-ferrolocus: it was on a table in the kitchen, I didn't go out of my way to make it or obtain it. It was just there, in a place that everybody visits. If minor ""grief"" (pie in the face) was reserved for clowns then that's the worst case of inconsistant moderation I've ever seen.
01:12:18: Reply from-sightld2: If a single player repeatedly over the course of several rounds caused minor grief to you, and it was ahelped, it would be handled the same way. Can you just not target this player anymore? Ok?
01:13:25: Reply from-ferrolocus: sev·er·al#/ˈsev(ə)rəl/#determiner · pronoun#_>_>_>more<_<_<_ than two but not many.#"the author of several books"##it was TWO rounds a day apart
01:14:57: Reply from-sightld2: I'm asking you to not with this player. Can you do that or are you going to keep debating?
01:16:05: Reply from-ferrolocus: I can do that
01:16:17: Reply from-sightld2: Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the round.
01:16:58: Sightld2/(Glyphidoptera Hirashimai) has created a note for FerroLocus<br />Given a final warning about meta-grudging. Combatitive and arguementive in ahelps.

Such an objectively massive cunt. /s

Posted: **Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:33 pm**

Players should be taking their policy discussions to policy discussion or ban appeals. Admins should not be saying players were combative and argumentative for players having a difference in opinion on the server's rules unless the player is disrespectful or extremely obtuse. I don't think ferrolocus was combative in that ticket. Argumentative, maybe, but he brought up valid points, and once he realized it was going nowhere he took it to appeals.

Posted: **Sat Dec 17, 2022 1:37 pm**

Yeah I mean, it's to be expected that people will want to argue their side of things, especially when feeling disrespected, and even more so when the efforts to come to a whole understanding for all parties is not made.

I'm not pointing at any appeals or tickets from whenever when I say that, I'm just saying it in general.

Posted: **Sat Dec 17, 2022 2:19 pm**

I tend to just note when players are cooperative and helpful in ahelps. It takes the sting off for the players and my goal is those kind of clauses work as carrots to encourage players to do the same in future ahelps. It helps everyone.

I will say however that when a player manages to talk themselves into a harsher punishment I will often include something about what they did to earn a note instead of a verbal warning, or a ban instead of a note.

So I guess for me, that standard would be when a player successfully talks me out of a lesser punishment and into a greater one.

Also of note is something only admins have access to, an excerpt from an internal Guide to Rule Enforcement:

Punish malice, a lack of empathy, and constant reckless incompetency. A player carrying out actions with a malicious intent to ruin the round for someone else should be taken out. Be careful when deciding that someone was malicious in their actions. Other players might not deliberately act with the intent to grief or be a dick but they display a lack of any ability to empathize or consider the fun of other people. Take these people out too. Lastly, you might constantly find some people who keep on doing things like releasing the singulo setting the supermatter off or being a really horrible head of staff. Sometimes constant advice fixes a person, sometimes they just need to be kept away from certain roles.

I'm not saying all admins follow it, but one of our key resources for decision making encourages punishing people that are malicious, lack empathy and are constantly recklessly incompetent. Often the people who are not malicious, have empathy and are not recklessly incompetent tend to be the kind of people that also don't argue back in tickets. They make the process as painless as possible for everyone, showcasing understanding, and will just appeal anything they disagree with instead of taking it out in the ticket.

Posted: **Sat Dec 17, 2022 4:51 pm**

CPTANT wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:49 pm
Vekter wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:39 pm Don't be objectively a massive cunt in an adminhelp and you won't get called combative.

Being slightly rude or curt in a ticket is one thing. Losing your shit and insulting everyone involved is another.

Spoiler:
01:02:30: Ticket Opened by-sightld2: You've been spoken to before about repeatedly griefing this exact person. There's no reason for you as an assistant to randomly pie anyone to begin with.
01:03:14: Reply from-ferrolocus: I threw a pie into someone's face how is that griefing
01:04:27: Reply from-sightld2: How is it not? What is it beyond screwing with someone? But again, you were already warned about doing this sort of thing, to the exact same person.
01:05:42: Reply from-ferrolocus: Are you not allowed to screw with someone? A pie to the face is the most basic thing, I've had pies randomly thrown in my face more times then I can count when did it become an issue?
01:06:47: Reply from-sightld2: The largest point, is that you've been told off for repeatedly doing this to the same target. Last time you got away with saying "How is two pranks in 20 minutes consistent." At this point, it very clearly is consistently, targetted griefing.
01:07:47: Reply from-ferrolocus: how is three pranks over the course of days consistant, targetted griefing?
01:08:15: Reply from-ferrolocus: especially when one of them is LITERALLY a pie to the face
01:09:07: Reply from-sightld2: Even then, that kind of minor grief is reserved for clowns. You're not a clown, your an assisstant, going out of your way to get a pie, and again, target the exact same player.
01:09:28: Reply from-sightld2: but for the record. Yes. Three times in days is a pattern.
01:11:21: Reply from-ferrolocus: it was on a table in the kitchen, I didn't go out of my way to make it or obtain it. It was just there, in a place that everybody visits. If minor ""grief"" (pie in the face) was reserved for clowns then that's the worst case of inconsistant moderation I've ever seen.
01:12:18: Reply from-sightld2: If a single player repeatedly over the course of several rounds caused minor grief to you, and it was ahelped, it would be handled the same way. Can you just not target this player anymore? Ok?
01:13:25: Reply from-ferrolocus: sev·er·al#/ˈsev(ə)rəl/#determiner · pronoun#_>_>_>more<_<_<_ than two but not many.#"the author of several books"##it was TWO rounds a day apart
01:14:57: Reply from-sightld2: I'm asking you to not with this player. Can you do that or are you going to keep debating?
01:16:05: Reply from-ferrolocus: I can do that
01:16:17: Reply from-sightld2: Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the round.
01:16:58: Sightld2/(Glyphidoptera Hirashimai) has created a note for FerroLocus<br />Given a final warning about meta-grudging. Combatitive and arguementive in ahelps.
Such an objectively massive cunt. /s

HUH ISN'T THAT INTERESTING THAT IT GOT APPEALED, IT'S ALMOST LIKE EVERY SITUATION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE MAKING A MISTAKE ISN'T INDICATIVE OF 99% OF INSTANCES WHERE WE USE THOSE TERMS

Posted: **Sat Dec 17, 2022 9:27 pm**

Vekter wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 4:51 pm
CPTANT wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:49 pm
Vekter wrote: ↑Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:39 pm Don't be objectively a massive cunt in an adminhelp and you won't get called combative.

Being slightly rude or curt in a ticket is one thing. Losing your shit and insulting everyone involved is another.

Spoiler:
01:02:30: Ticket Opened by-sightld2: You've been spoken to before about repeatedly griefing this exact person. There's no reason for you as an assistant to randomly pie anyone to begin with.
01:03:14: Reply from-ferrolocus: I threw a pie into someone's face how is that griefing
01:04:27: Reply from-sightld2: How is it not? What is it beyond screwing with someone? But again, you were already warned about doing this sort of thing, to the exact same person.
01:05:42: Reply from-ferrolocus: Are you not allowed to screw with someone? A pie to the face is the most basic thing, I've had pies randomly thrown in my face more times then I can count when did it become an issue?
01:06:47: Reply from-sightld2: The largest point, is that you've been told off for repeatedly doing this to the same target. Last time you got away with saying "How is two pranks in 20 minutes consistent." At this point, it very clearly is consistently, targetted griefing.
01:07:47: Reply from-ferrolocus: how is three pranks over the course of days consistant, targetted griefing?
01:08:15: Reply from-ferrolocus: especially when one of them is LITERALLY a pie to the face
01:09:07: Reply from-sightld2: Even then, that kind of minor grief is reserved for clowns. You're not a clown, your an assisstant, going out of your way to get a pie, and again, target the exact same player.
01:09:28: Reply from-sightld2: but for the record. Yes. Three times in days is a pattern.
01:11:21: Reply from-ferrolocus: it was on a table in the kitchen, I didn't go out of my way to make it or obtain it. It was just there, in a place that everybody visits. If minor ""grief"" (pie in the face) was reserved for clowns then that's the worst case of inconsistant moderation I've ever seen.
01:12:18: Reply from-sightld2: If a single player repeatedly over the course of several rounds caused minor grief to you, and it was ahelped, it would be handled the same way. Can you just not target this player anymore? Ok?
01:13:25: Reply from-ferrolocus: sev·er·al#/ˈsev(ə)rəl/#determiner · pronoun#_>_>_>more<_<_<_ than two but not many.#"the author of several books"##it was TWO rounds a day apart
01:14:57: Reply from-sightld2: I'm asking you to not with this player. Can you do that or are you going to keep debating?
01:16:05: Reply from-ferrolocus: I can do that
01:16:17: Reply from-sightld2: Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the round.
01:16:58: Sightld2/(Glyphidoptera Hirashimai) has created a note for FerroLocus<br />Given a final warning about meta-grudging. Combatitive and arguementive in ahelps.
Such an objectively massive cunt. /s
HUH ISN'T THAT INTERESTING THAT IT GOT APPEALED, IT'S ALMOST LIKE EVERY SITUATION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE MAKING A MISTAKE ISN'T INDICATIVE OF 99% OF INSTANCES WHERE WE USE THOSE TERMS

If I would dig the ban appeals I can find several more of these instances, I made this thread because I could see a trend. I don't see any mention of this part of the note being appealed by the way.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2022 4:03 am**

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat Dec 17, 2022 2:19 pm I'm not saying all admins follow it, but one of our key resources for decision making encourages punishing people that are malicious, lack empathy and are constantly recklessly incompetent. Often the people who are not malicious, have empathy and are not recklessly incompetent tend to be the kind of people that also don't argue back in tickets. They make the process as painless as possible for everyone, showcasing understanding, and will just appeal anything they disagree with instead of taking it out in the ticket.

Kind of a problem when the host himself says that people are allowed to express frustration if they believe an admin has screwed up.

viewtopic.php?p=646955#p646955

Players should not be expected to bite their tongue towards admins who fuck up, even in minor ways. They are allowed to express their frustration, and all of our admins are capable of handling it.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:55 pm**

Our illustrious host also bans people for sassing or frustrating him, and isn't in-game handling tickets.

With all due respect to him, which is of course something said when you're about to say something with zero respect - neither admins nor players should be being cunts in tickets, appeals or complaints.

There are ways to express frustration or annoyance constructively or in a civil way, understanding that basically everything an admin does can be appealed or complained about formally.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2022 1:38 pm**

I hope we are all keeping in mind that being frustrated, hysterical, or going out your way to be a dickhead are all different things.

One of those things is completely understandable, one is unmanageable, and the other is an issue of malice.

Posted: **Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:04 pm**

Everyone is better off focusing on behaviors rather than attitudes.

We aren't interested in setting a standard where something like this would be acceptable and someone would be able to point at it as being acceptable. We do not want to set a precedent of there being a shield for this sort of thing.

People will inveterately end up venting their frustrations, and will sometimes be - very reasonably - upset in tickets. That being said I (we) would rather see that be handled and managed in the ticket than see someone be labeled as combative.

/tg/Station 13

Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"

Re: Standards for admins calling Ahelps "argumentative", "combative" or "extremely hostile"