Addition to Rule 6 Precedent 2

[Drag]

I'd like to add "lying by omission" or "unreasonably refusing to assist admins in investigations" to Rule 6 Precedent 2.

It's not a secret that admins are volunteers, and as the wise Timber once said: "It's been banned before, and will be banned again."

If we're banning people for it, it's only fair to make it clear that refusing to answer questions outright will come with consequences. We give a heads-up about the repercussions of lying, so I'd like to keep the rules as coherent as possible.

Edit: For clarity, this is specifically tackling instances where players refuse to elaborate on details. Such as being asked who told them to do what and refusing to tell the admin the information they're after.

[Cheshify]

Yeah

[kieth4]

Not everyone wants to be embroiled in a long ass ticket- I think adding lying by omission is fine but "unreasonably refusing to assist admins in investigations" is a bit of a strange thing. If an uninvolved party does not want to get involved they shouldn't have to and the wording makes it sound like you want to force them to.

[Misdoubtful]

As long as people accidently omitting things is included in this, right? Seems to be the meat of the edit though anyways so cool.

[Vekter]

Not everyone wants to be embroiled in a long ass ticket- I think adding lying by omission is fine but "unreasonably refusing to assist admins in investigations" is a bit of a strange thing. If an uninvolved party does not want to get involved they shouldn't have to and the wording makes it sound like you want to force them to.

Should be worth noting that the reason behind this was a ticket where a player actively refused to assist an admin because he 'didn't want to be a snitch'. The question the admin in question asked wasn't unreasonable, nor would the ticket have been long - it was a literal yes or no question.

[DrAmazing343]

Sounds like a reasonable precedent, especially in the context of a ticketed user trying not to be a “snitch.” It’s unreasonable to treat potential rule breaking like you’re in a gang or in high school or some other infantile thing like that; this precedent should be solid to help ward off that behavior and make tickets easier.

[Itseasytosee2me]

Damn, for real taking away spacemen 5th amendment.

[kieth4]

Not everyone wants to be embroiled in a long ass ticket- I think adding lying by omission is fine but "unreasonably refusing to assist admins in investigations" is a bit of a strange thing. If an uninvolved party does not want to get involved they shouldn't have to and the wording makes it sound like you want to force them to.

Should be worth noting that the reason behind this was a ticket where a player actively refused to assist an admin because he 'didn't want to be a snitch'. The question the admin in question asked wasn't unreasonable, nor would the ticket have been long - it was a literal yes or no question.

Logs exist. If someone doesn't want to engage don't force them to

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Definitely a rule to be carefully worded to avoid incredibly stupid bans down the lane.

[kinnebian]

I'd like to add "lying by omission" or "unreasonably refusing to assist admins in investigations" to Rule 6 Precedent 2.

Adding "Lying by omission" i can get behind, but if someone does not want to be a part of an investigation you shouldnt be able to force them to, it would only lead to miffed players and bad investigations, because the person you interrogated just gave the first answer that came to mind so they could keep playing.

[dendydoom]

generally i will respect someone's request to not have to answer questions as long as they understand that they're forfeiting their opportunity to give their side of the story. i don't think someone should be punished on those grounds alone, but if i make my ruling that turns out to be against them and then they come at me with context that they could've given me before then i'm just going to roll my eyes.

[Vekter]

Not everyone wants to be embroiled in a long ass ticket- I think adding lying by omission is fine but "unreasonably refusing to assist admins in investigations" is a bit of a strange thing. If an uninvolved party does not want to get involved they shouldn't have to and the wording makes it sound like you want to force them to.

Should be worth noting that the reason behind this was a ticket where a player actively refused to assist an admin because he 'didn't want to be a snitch'. The question the admin in question asked wasn't unreasonable, nor would the ticket have been long - it was a literal yes or no question.

Logs exist. If someone doesn't want to engage don't force them to

Kieth I get that your whole thing is "player freedom" but not everything is logged and I shouldn't have to deal with someone being a cunt about a simple question out of the adult equivalent of being mad at your math teacher for giving you homework.

It's not that deep. If you really, truly don't want to interact, just say you don't know.

[kieth4]

Not everyone wants to be embroiled in a long ass ticket- I think adding lying by omission is fine but "unreasonably refusing to assist admins in investigations" is a bit of a strange thing. If an uninvolved party does not want to get involved they shouldn't have to and the wording makes it sound like you want to force them to.

Should be worth noting that the reason behind this was a ticket where a player actively refused to assist an admin because he 'didn't want to be a snitch'. The question the admin in question asked wasn't unreasonable, nor would the ticket have been long - it was a literal yes or no question.

Logs exist. If someone doesn't want to engage don't force them to

Kieth I get that your whole thing is "player freedom" but not everything is logged and I shouldn't have to deal with someone being a cunt about a simple question out of the adult equivalent of being mad at your math teacher for giving you homework.

It's not that deep. If you really, truly don't want to interact, just say you don't know.

If someone does not want to deal with admins they should not be forced into what is the potential slog of a long ticket over something they have minimal involvement in. I don't think that the portrayal is entirely fair, it isn't just a "Maths teacher homework" situation it's more like having to sit in the principal's office and talk to the teacher about an event you may have witnessed it's not entirely a fun experience and can completely throw you out of the flow of the round.

I don't entirely feel that they should be a cunt to you but if they don't want to engage with you that should be an option too as opposed to fucking banning them for it.

Not a fan of this proposed power trip where they MUST assist they MUST answer questions.

[kieth4]

Alright- let me rephrase what I'm saying a bit here. It might not be every single ahelp that is annoying to deal with if you're not involved but some of them are. People should be valid to accept and deal with these.

Alternate scenarios:

1) "okay" (hide in locker answer) (admin asks another question and more locker time...) (admin asks third and final question and you're done).

You've wasted a bunch of the round over something you do not care about and now you're completely ripped from the flow of it and probably aren't entirely aware of what's going on. That isn't the most ideal experience.

2) player: "no" admin: "Ok" (dealt with)

and the admin uses logs/ other witnesses/people involved.

Saying yes doesn't guarantee a short ticket and saying no doesn't guarantee a long one you're literally rolling the rng admin dice

It isn't EVERY SINGLE AHELP 100% OF THE TIME where it's annoying but if someone simply is not involved and does not want to engage what benefit is there to forcing them? It's just shitty on the community.

Off Topic

hello, it's me, your pal dendydoom. the original post was deleted, but since you brought up valuable topics in a discussion, i did not want to just delete your response to it as well. i've pruned the quote and have left the rest of your beautiful post as-is.

[kieth4]

am I schizophrenic or did you delete your message

[Striders13]

adding lying by omission is a horrible idea cause I know I forget most of the details in the round by the time I'm bwoinked. Don't think we need to add any more gotcha traps to our bwoinks.

[BrianBackslide]

How do you prove the player is lying? Are you going to ban players because they forgot a key detail? Under the assumption of lying? What if you ban a player for lying when it turns out they were telling the truth?

What's the line that constitutes "unreasonable"? I get that some players need information coaxed out of them, but I don't think that's generally stubbornness or wanting to obstruct an investigation. Some people aren't very well able to voice their knowledge well and need a little push.

[Timberpoes]

This doesn't need a ruling.

I don't need a precedent to deal with players that make ahelps difficult by being unreasonably obstructive. I've done it before. I'll do it again.

Making another ruling or rule just ties my hands to whatever arbitrary and poorly worded criteria are set.

It should not come as a surprise to players that not participating in the admin process in good faith can see them admin jailed until they do, noted or even banned.

[TheLoLSwat]

whatever happens please remember that players dont have access to logs in order to perfectly remember specific incidents that happen earlier in a round. I was banned for misremembering the reason for wearing something and It would suck if players were getting banned for not perfectly recalling situations in a ticket (while at the same time being pressed to give definitive answers)

[Vekter]

am I schizophrenic or did you delete your message

I did delete it because I got frustrated talking about this.

[britgrenadier1]

Bwoink anxiety is very real. Let’s not add to it further by hovering a ban over people who might just not feel comfortable adding their 2 cents. It’s hard to remember stuff.

[Vekter]

Bwoink anxiety is very real. Let’s not add to it further by hovering a ban over people who might just not feel comfortable adding their 2 cents. It’s hard to remember stuff.

"Bwoink anxiety" is one of the most confusing things to me. I don't understand why people freak out over it. Most of the time it's just a question. I don't get it.

If you genuinely think every time an admin wants to talk to you it's to ban you, I mean... Maybe there's some issue with not understanding the rules? Even if you accidentally did something to break them, usually we'll just go "Okay, don't do it again" and maybe note you if it was a big enough deal.

[britgrenadier1]

Bwoink anxiety is very real. Let’s not add to it further by hovering a ban over people who might just not feel comfortable adding their 2 cents. It’s hard to remember stuff.

"Bwoink anxiety" is one of the most confusing things to me. I don't understand why people freak out over it. Most of the time it's just a question. I don't get it.

If you genuinely think every time an admin wants to talk to you it's to ban you, I mean... Maybe there's some issue with not understanding the rules? Even if you accidentally did something to break them, usually we'll just go "Okay, don't do it again" and maybe note you if it was a big enough deal.

I don’t really know how to explain it honestly, just feels shitty. Everyone gets it too, even if you’ve been around forever and have dealt with it. I think it’s the idea of “You, stop. Explain yourself” that tends to freak people out a bit.

[Justice12354]

whatever happens please remember that players dont have access to logs in order to perfectly remember specific incidents that happen earlier in a round. I was banned for misremembering the reason for wearing something and It would suck if players were getting banned for not perfectly recalling situations in a ticket (while at the same time being pressed to give definitive answers)

Failing is human and the vast majority do not have a perfect memory. This ruling's intent would be to deal with intentional, unreasonable omissions of information, rather than the misremembering of a detail

[Drag]

whatever happens please remember that players dont have access to logs in order to perfectly remember specific incidents that happen earlier in a round. I was banned for misremembering the reason for wearing something and It would suck if players were getting banned for not perfectly recalling situations in a ticket (while at the same time being pressed to give definitive answers)

Failing is human and the vast majority do not have a perfect memory. This ruling's intent would be to deal with intentional, unreasonable omissions of information, rather than the misremembering of a detail

This is what my intent behind this is, yes.

Any mentioning of anything else is unconstructive to the topic.

[britgrenadier1]

whatever happens please remember that players dont have access to logs in order to perfectly remember specific incidents that happen earlier in a round. I was banned for misremembering the reason for wearing something and It would suck if players were getting banned for not perfectly recalling situations in a ticket (while at the same time being pressed to give definitive answers)

Failing is human and the vast majority do not have a perfect memory. This ruling's intent would be to deal with intentional, unreasonable omissions of information, rather than the misremembering of a detail

This is what my intent behind this is, yes.

Any mentioning of anything else is unconstructive to the topic.

I think that player perception of the rules is important for encouraging people to follow them. If the knee-jerk reaction from players in the thread is "This sounds like I'm gonna get banned if I cant remember something and that makes me uncomfortable" then maybe the takeaway there is that the wording of the suggested precedent should be changed. Admins can already ban people for lying in ahelps, I'm not a huge fan of the obstruction of justice thing being tacked on there.

[Justice12354]

<snip>

I think that player perception of the rules is important for encouraging people to follow them. If the knee-jerk reaction from players in the thread is "This sounds like I'm gonna get banned if I cant remember something and that makes me uncomfortable" then maybe the takeaway there is that the wording of the suggested precedent should be changed. Admins can already ban people for lying in ahelps, I'm not a huge fan of the obstruction of justice thing being tacked on there.

I feel like the main problem here regarding player perception is that Drag gave two possibilities for an addition to the precedent, which left some people worried because adding "lying by omission" is indeed not a good idea (since that means that accidentally lying by omission would also be covered, which is not what we're looking for here)

Regarding the "I'm not a huge fan of the obstruction of justice thing being tacked on there.", it is already enforced, so it's not being tacked on there, it's just being added for clarification that intentionally, unreasonably denying to cooperative goes against the rules.

Furthermore, I don't think players should be forced to engage with a ticket and I was trained to only force a player into a ticket if they're at risk of getting banned. With that in mind, I hope this doesn't become an excuse to adminjail players if they don't instantly reply or if they say "I don't want to engage with the ticket", but rather a clarification that those who go out of their way to be dicks because "I ain't snitching" or some other dumb bullshit will get punished.

As dendy said, players who don't engage with the ticket are already shooting themselves in the foot, so why shoot them ourselves too? They're being dicks to themselves at best

[kieth4]

am I schizophrenic or did you delete your message

I did delete it because I got frustrated talking about this.

it's chill man nws.

[TheBibleMelts]

if someone is being bwoinked about something they did and refuse to cooperate or answer any questions, they can have the worst assumed about them.

if someone is being bwoinked about something that somebody else did and is refusing to give context, that is a social situation for the admin to need to suss out on their own without pointing a loaded gun at the player under threat of a codified ban for non-cooperation. if the person is entirely unrelated, they shouldn't be 'required' to write a story, but if they're even tangentially related to what you're trying to investigate, you should let them know that you're going to have to assume the worst that the logs/other testimonies show if they're unwilling to present their side.

[Itseasytosee2me]

Forcing someone to testify against someone who might be their friend is outright tyrannical and will not end up good for the players or the admins trying to conduct their investigations. I don't know if that is what this thread is trying to achieve, but if it is, think twice about the consequences.

[Isratosh]

Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts is already in the rules. Anything short of that, including refusing to answer questions, has historically and should just be dealt with by assuming the worst or the most likely explanation based on other details like logs and other players' testimony. If somebody is declining to answer questions that would improve their standing in the situation, that's their problem and they can explain it on the forums if they decide to change their mind. Nobody is going to eat an admin for banning somebody who ended up having a legit reason to do whatever if that player was being obstinate and declining to explain themselves in the moment. If their explanation would have lead to a ban anyway, then the outcome is the same if we just assume the worst. A repeated pattern of being a dick to admins will already get you banned, no extra rules needed.

Nobody likes to respond to admin PMs and they are exceedingly disruptive to normal play. I make an effort to investigate as much as possible before sending a PM and I've investigated my way out of having to send many PMs this way. I have not experienced a player refusing to answer simple questions in the manner that prompted this topic in the ~5 months I've been back and most players are quite upfront and helpful.

[BonChoi]

It just seems unnecessary to add this. Seems like ya'll already have avenues to deal with stuff like this and it seems to be common knowledge that if you're doing something in bad faith you are liable to getting dunked on, figuratively.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Bwoink anxiety is very real. Let’s not add to it further by hovering a ban over people who might just not feel comfortable adding their 2 cents. It’s hard to remember stuff.

"Bwoink anxiety" is one of the most confusing things to me. I don't understand why people freak out over it. Most of the time it's just a question. I don't get it.

If you genuinely think every time an admin wants to talk to you it's to ban you, I mean... Maybe there's some issue with not understanding the rules? Even if you accidentally did something to break them, usually we'll just go "Okay, don't do it again" and maybe note you if it was a big enough deal.

People dont like having the referee call them over for a chat/quiz in any game, competition, sport, recreation, you name it.

[TheLoLSwat]

Bwoink anxiety is very real. Let’s not add to it further by hovering a ban over people who might just not feel comfortable adding their 2 cents. It’s hard to remember stuff.

"Bwoink anxiety" is one of the most confusing things to me. I don't understand why people freak out over it. Most of the time it's just a question. I don't get it.

bwoinks take you out of the round for an indeterminate amount of time. Having to spend ?? minutes in a locker scrolling up to make sure you arent misremembering anything is far less fun than playing ss13. Its even worse when you consider how big of a time investment even one round is

[Itseasytosee2me]

Sorry this is like my third time posting in this thread but I really want to accentuate how bad the idea of punishing people for “unreasonably refusing to assist admins in investigations" would be. There is a real reason why the fifth amendment is so important in the united states, and it’s importance in real life transfers one to one with this space game.

[Misdoubtful]

Coming back to this thread I guess maybe I need to clarify for this, that this is something I wouldn't really bat an eye at if it was things done with malice. Like intentionally lying in tickets with the intention of causing problems. Its one thing to choose to not spill the beans or whatever, not being confident about info, whatever... its another thing to be actively and intentionally causing problems. Its more that I focused on that particular word in the proposal I guess: unreasonable.

[Itseasytosee2me]

the word unreasonable is entirely subjective and may as well not exist in this context. Alot of american’s shittier police conduct laws have it as well.

[dendydoom]

i think it's entirely valid to reprimand users who intentionally try to frustrate the process of trying to resolve an issue and i would like to think admins are more than capable enough to tell the difference between someone who is being a shithead and someone who is simply uncertain or uncomfortable or shy but ultimately i question how important it is to signpost this to players with a rule amendment - it seems to send the message of "you can get banned if you interact with us wrong" which, while i suppose technically true, is not the tone i want to set with players when i approach them and ultimately ask for them to give up their time to help me with something.

[conrad]

I don't think we need a rule addition/change for this. If you find out someone lied on ahelps you can action them later. "Deliberately lying or misrepresenting facts in adminhelps will be dealt with harshly." is already part of rule 6.

If you have a conflict between the logs of player behaviour and what they said on the ahelp you can already pull the trigger. If they don't wanna help you, and aren't a guilty party, you can just continue your investigation.

[TheBibleMelts]

if someone is being bwoinked about something they did and refuse to cooperate or answer any questions, they can have the worst assumed about them.

if someone is being bwoinked about something that somebody else did and is refusing to give context, that is a social situation for the admin to need to suss out on their own without pointing a loaded gun at the player under threat of a codified ban for non-cooperation. if the person is entirely unrelated, they shouldn't be 'required' to write a story, but if they're even tangentially related to what you're trying to investigate, you should let them know that you're going to have to assume the worst that the logs/other testimonies show if they're unwilling to present their side.

-me earlier in this thread

"Some dipshit is going to use this to cry and wail and I don't want to encourage that when someone being a douche to admins in ahelps is going to get banned under the current ruleset anyways."

-cheshify wearing a fake moustache

i think it's entirely valid to reprimand users who intentionally try to frustrate the process of trying to resolve an issue and i would like to think admins are more than capable enough to tell the difference between someone who is being a shithead and someone who is simply uncertain or uncomfortable or shy but ultimately i question how important it is to signpost this to players with a rule amendment - it seems to send the message of "you can get banned if you interact with us wrong" which, while i suppose technically true, is not the tone i want to set with players when i approach them and ultimately ask for them to give up their time to help me with something.

-dendy saying it more smarter two posts above