/tg/Station 13

oranges wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:50 pm A guideline people will ignore as long as headadmins *must* review every request?

Kinda pointless

just say you will no longer review every requested thread and people will figure it out.

Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 6:25 am If you want to lower the number of HEADMIN reviews, then the best option would be to open up ban appeals to review by unaffiliated regular mods/admins/game masters first to act as a neutral 3rd party first, and then if THEY feel the case warrants headmin review, the neutral moderator/admin/game master can request it.

Or, try out a player council for bans/notes which do not require access to sensitive information.

Fren256 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 19, 2023 5:09 pm Is it really necessary that headmins review ALL appeals when requested?

Vekter wrote: ↑Sat Apr 15, 2023 10:07 pm We talked about this in adminbus earlier and I feel like there's a distinct issue in the fact that everyone is guaranteed a headmin review.

I feel like you shouldn't necessarily be owed one unless the ban is longer than 48 hours, and headmin reviews on individual notes should be right out. Headmins should have the power to step in if they think a ban/note is unfair, but the current system presents some problems:

1) Most day bans only ever get reviewed after the ban has already expired, either by virtue of the headmins being too busy or being unable to get all three of them to rule on something in a timely manner due to IRL responsibilities.
2) Some players don't put any actual effort into their appeal because they expect to be able to request a review regardless if they don't agree with the admin's opinion.
3) The vast majority of note appeals end in either "the note stays" or "the note has been slightly modified to make it sound better". I'm not convinced a headmin always needs to step in on these issues. It might be better to let admin trainers voice their opinion on notes, but expecting all 3 headmins to handle them seems silly.

There's some concern here that this will result in admins sneaking in bans that go against the rules, to which I say "I think that's drastically underestimating the moral compass of our admins" and also "headmins can still rule on whatever they want, if something is causing a big stink, they should prioritize looking at it regardless".

1. Whether the appellee was at fault for the actions that happened that resulted in the ban/note.
2. Whether the ban or note was ultimately fair for the actions that happened with the evidence provided.
3. If the ban/note was unfair, whether the ban/note should be tweaked or removed entirely.

Misdoubtful wrote: ↑Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:41 pm Hi all,

We are considering the possibility of creating a guide to add to the ban appeals forum about headmin reviews.

When its best to request them?
When not to request them?
Why to request them?
How to best request them?
Terminology like upheld, overturned, did not review.
Etc.

Every term is going to be different and we are fancying the idea of creating something that will last and serve as a guideline people can use. Clearly not every thread is going to need a headmin review or headmins weighing in on it, even when requested.

This is a continuation of the Implicitness of Requesting a Headmin Review Thread: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=32685

What do you, the reader (reading this) ((right now)) think?

iwishforducks wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 12:23 am to me i think it's redundant to have all three headmins weigh in on all reviews, i don't see why they simply can't be handled by one headmin (timber takes this approach, and steps into appeals on their own terms sometimes, which is the best approach imo)

it's an important process to have a headmin look over bans and at the very least go "yeah okay, from a glance this seems fine" - some sort of oversight is always appreciated. i don't think headmins should give up that duty but most reviews that headmins give are just signing off on other reviews done by headmins... which is really dumb