Ban-Appeal Representatives

[QuartzCrystal]

Players, when appealing a ban, should be given the option of having another player or an admin appeal on their behalf.

Simply put, sometimes people get bans that are too harsh or unnecessary but they don't know the rules well enough, or precedents, and end up making really shitty appeals. Combine the option to have someone appeal on your behalf with public logs and BAM suddenly our ban appeals are like the thrilling second halves of episodes of Law and Order.

How would we determine someone is competent enough to represent banned players though? Perhaps admin trainers or higher? Maybe we set a bar exam?

[Timbrewolf]

I've previously offered my services as a ban-appeal rep and will continue to do so.

[TechnoAlchemist]

It's happened before, I don't really think we need to turn admintrainers into lawyers though. People should make the cases for themselves.

[QuartzCrystal]

I'm going ahead and making a list of people who are open to being ban-appeal reps.

EDIT: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=4057

[TechnoAlchemist]

If someone doesn't understand the rules, why should they get third party help with getting out of their ban?

Instead of, y'know, actually understanding the rules and not getting banned?

You should know the rules if you are going to play on the server, people who don't take time to read the rules shouldn't be helped if they get banned.

[imblyings]

Under current forum rules, and especially with public logs, anyone can already post on behalf of a banned person.

It's also not like real life where you can hire a lawyer to make you seem like a saint after being a horrible murderer or something. Any ban-appeal representative would be more of an admin trying to resolve ban appeal threads in a timely manner and just checking to make things were properly investigated/fairly banned for a minority of cases, rather than the devil's advocate I'm sure banned players are hoping they would be.

[Timbrewolf]

Sounds like someone is afraid of due process!

In all seriousness though in function it'll be a list of folks someone who is having trouble articulating their point or getting through to the administration can talk to and see if they can't explain their situation in a more professional, experienced manner.

Not everyone has been around long enough to be able to cite random examples of precedent or point out hypocritical stuff. While we already see a lot of players jumping into threads to advocate (or condemn) other players, having a list of a couple people that have offered to help out in shitty situations might be beneficial in some circumstances.

[Saegrimr]

If you didn't read the rules page, its your own damn fault and the only thing I would advocate is the addition of an extra week onto your ban if you clearly have not read the rules ("I didn't know doing this would be a permaban") or otherwise admit to not having read the rules.

Its pretty simple, did you do the thing?
Yes: Get out
No: Keep up the good work

Its not "WELL UNDER SECTION 3b OF THE ASSISTANT'S RIGHTS CLAUSE, IT SAYS HERE THAT SO LONG AS ONE TOOLBOX IS APPLIED TO THE SKULL IT REMAINS VALID UNLESS THE TOOLBOX WAS STOLEN FROM THE VIC--" you get the idea.
I mean if you want shit like this https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 26&#p97836 then yeah we'd probably need ban appeal lawyers.

[NikNakFlak]

This is by far the worst idea quartz has ever had and he should feel bad for pushing the matter.

[Timbrewolf]

-snip-

If it was that simple we wouldn't need this subforum at all.

There's a lot of grey area and contradictory shit in the rules as-is. Intent matters a lot. There's often a lot of different ways to see a single situation. Player's make mistakes and break the rules, but administrators make mistakes as well and sometimes seem to selectively enforce some rules but not others.

This list will probably rarely if ever at all get used, since people are usually quick to jump into a thread and point out discrepancies on their own, without having to be asked. It seems to me this list will serve as a go-to for situations where someone feels there are these discrepancies but nobody is helping them articulate that, or they're just feeling dog-piled by the administration and would like a second opinion.

[Saegrimr]

There's a lot of grey area (too vague?) and contradictory (too specific?) shit in the rules because some people have an autism fit if their very specific action isn't directly listed in the rules, so shit has to constantly be tacked on one after another.

[Kelenius]

So why'd you want to let a player who was banned and can't even be bothered to made a decent appeal play?

[NikNakFlak]

The thread's been moved to be discussed more. Quartz shouldn't have jumped a head with this.

[Stickymayhem]

I'd rather ban dohpiling than give the other side a bunch of people too.

Why don't we just keep it simple. One on one discussion of the ban, then the admin unbans or leaves it. If the admin won't unban you, headmins can take a look. Other admins don't need to get involved except under the strict interpretation of the ammendment we judge players by.

I'm trying to make the rules simpler. Lawyers are going to be about as helpful here as they are in the brig.

[ColonicAcid]

If you didn't read the rules page, its your own damn fault and the only thing I would advocate is the addition of an extra week onto your ban if you clearly have not read the rules ("I didn't know doing this would be a permaban") or otherwise admit to not having read the rules.

I haven't read the rules since like early 2013.
Shoot me.
I can't be fucked to read something that looks like it was written by a crazy retard on the loose with a type writer. It's a convoluted mess and if you genuinely think a normal person is going to spend time to read that dog shit of a rule set fully you are in your own little world. You probably tell everyone to read your TERMS AND CONDITIONS FULLY SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING INTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

normal people don't do this, normal people use common sense, killing someone for no reason in a roleplaying game is bad, not following your laws is bad.
WE do not and never needed 300 fucking subclauses on "FOLLOW YOUR FUCKING LAWS YOU AUTISMO"

[Saegrimr]

normal people don't do this, normal people use common sense, killing someone for no reason in a roleplaying game is bad, not following your laws is bad.

If only it was that easy. In the last three days of bans we have:
-Spraying a flamethrower on the shuttle as non-antag.
-Turning the PA up without setting up the containment and then logging out
-Metacomms
-IC in OOC, though anybody could slip up on that.
-"Flooded plasma as a non-antagonist because he was bored."
-Locking a guy in the DNA machine and blasted them with radiation until unconscious and then just left.
-"Robbed the armory so he could try to kill the HoS instead critted a random officer."
-Mass lubing (whatever) and injecting chloral into the chef's food.
-More atmos tech plasma flooding
-Really blatant IC in OOC

Please show me these "normal people" that play.

[ColonicAcid]

Me.

I've only been banned for ic and ooc and one really really sketchy ban that I still think is bullshit but whatever.

It's not fucking hard lol.

[Saegrimr]

Keep up the good work then.

[QuartzCrystal]

I'm disappointed that my not-entirely serious idea and thread have been shot down by everyone. We'll never be as exciting as the second halves of Law and Order episodes.

[Bluespace]

I could totally defend someone in their appeal.

[Saegrimr]

I could totally defend someone in their appeal.

-2015, Blue "In Game PermaBanned" space

[Bluespace]

That was because I was a shitty admin, not because I can't make good appeals.
I would dredge through headmin post history and bring up things to muddy up the appeal until nobody was sure who should even be banned anymore.

[Tsaricide]

It worked for 2beard, right An0n3?

[Steelpoint]

Honestly I prefer the simplistic idea of the admin and player having a one on one, the player could elect to ask head admin to weigh in on the decision however as well.

[Falamazeer]

Yeah, but with forum moderation being what it is, it can and has easily ended up three admins teaming up to tell one guy how shitty he is.
It's looser with the anon amendment, but before that, it was completely shitty. and it could still use improvement.

Now it's just loud people picking their battles and only jumping in with wall-o-text opinion pieces when bad precedents are being set.
Honestly, I'd just ditch the forum rules of silently silencing dissenting opinions through punishment, and let admins/players get reamed when they make bad calls and stick with them stubbornly, trial by combat style.

[John_Oxford]

I would support this, if i get to be a lawyer.
Other than that, and if my fancy dandy constiutuion of TG is not instated.
Then no, your making things more complicated than they have to.
Which isn't irony at all, not even a little bit.

[Malkevin]

If someone doesn't understand the rules, why should they get third party help with getting out of their ban?

Instead of, y'know, actually understanding the rules and not getting banned?

You should know the rules if you are going to play on the server, people who don't take time to read the rules shouldn't be helped if they get banned.

I guess no one should've defended you in that appeal for you killing that clown then?

The one on one appeal idea is fucking dumb, it's what we have now except it would be even more closed off, at the end of the day admins are people and people hate admitting they are wrong unless mass public out cry makes them.
You don't have to look any further than the recent ban quartz issued against me for a prime example of this, if you want another prime example you can delve into the archive and find the only other ban I've had which was placed by Rosen Ritter.

I will of course volunteer my services for this because I already do the fucking job anyway, on the conditions that:
a. The title is anything but lawyer because lawyers in the context of ss13 have the reputation of being the most powerless and ineffectually useless pieces of scum in the universe. My personal pref for an alt title is Arbiter
b. Arbiters aren't just a fancy title but actually have some power, ie an ability unlock and move threads in fnr and have the same level of immunity to post deletion that admins have
c. The existence of Arbiters isn't used to shut people out of fnr with "well you don't have a title so fuck off


And really the problem with fnr at the moment isn't that people can't represent each other, it's that the two people that moderate it are the two biggest overzealous wet blankets in the community.
Go figure they're both opposed to this.

Edit: why exactly can't we go back to the old fully open fnr, we might've had a major problems a few years back but I think that was largely caused by that huge toxic meta clique that would shit up fnr whenever one of their friends was involved, that's not a thing we have anymore

[Falamazeer]

that's not a thing we have anymore

Bwahahahaha You gotta be fucking kidding me.

But yes, I agree, toxic overmoderation.

[TechnoAlchemist]

snip

Good point.

But what I mean is yes, people should be able to chime in with relevant things about policies ect.

I just don't think that people who make ban appeals should have someone else making the case for them. They're the won who got banned, if they think it's unjustified they obviously already have a case to make.

I don't want this to turn into "let's see if I can get this shitter off the hook because he's my client".

[Malkevin]

Unless they're going to start sending money to my paypal I doubt any rep is going to waste their time arguing for a shit head to get off.

[oranges]

Disappointing to see that my posts in this thread didn't make it through, I thought they were well reasoned and balanced.