Enforcement Policy - What should Admins be doing?

[Tornadium]

So going off Oldmans Appeal where my post got deleted I figured I'd make a policy discussion.

Really it's around the question : Should admins really be actively looking for reasons to ban people?

It's an ugly trend that damages the community as a whole I feel. An admin should never ever be going into a situation with the mindset of "Ok I'm going to catch you doing something wrong here". Yes shitlers are a problem, yes grey tiding is a problem but intervention really should be used as a last resort where either it is serious enough to warrant immediate OOC intervention Eg. Non antag murder spree, spacing and gibbing bodies etc, where IC resolution has failed or where IC resolution is not possible.

Using the CJS incident as an example, there really was no need for day bans to be handed out for a situation that was entirely resolved IC with security, where no one died and where no serious damage was done to the station or to affect the rounds of other players.

So yeah open discussion and what not.

[CPTANT]

An admin should keep the server as fun as possible. Not try to ban as many people as possible. Shit has become way to uptight over a period of time. Banning should be an action for things that can't be resolved without one, or extreme shittery.

Minor dickery it pretty much mandatory to keep a round interesting. Far more rounds get ruined by "to afraid to do something in fear of bwoink" than by "zomg greytide everywhere".

You have more things at your disposal than just bans, send centcom reports, fuck people over IC, gib them. Just don't let every time someone does something stupid escalate to ooc punishment and whine.

[peoplearestrange]

Thats a very loaded question "Should admins really be actively looking for reasons to ban people?" That makes it sound as if we're seeking out people we dislike and trying to find issues to ban them with.

I suspect what you mean is, should admins actively patrol/observe actively enforcing the rules where we see "bad things" happen, instead of just answer ahelps and such.

While I might agree a more hands off approach would be wise, not everyone ahelps, particually in situatiosn where they probably should. Now i'm not sure if thats because they don't know they can, they dont think they should (to do fear of judgement among their peers or other admins), or they don't feel thats what ahelp is for.

Also then we reach a point where people ahelp lots and we start having to reject ahelps due to it being a half truth or irrelevant/nitpicking or just plain false. And people expect direct results from there ahelp (by which I mean, people assume they are right even when they are not and dont like to be to told "looked into it, it was fine").

So what do we do... deal with things more IC ways as suggest by CPTANT, well that normally goes down the old route of "badmin abuse", that using our powers to effect the round.

[Screemonster]

While I might agree a more hands off approach would be wise, not everyone ahelps, particually in situatiosn where they probably should. Now i'm not sure if thats because they don't know they can, they dont think they should (to do fear of judgement among their peers or other admins), or they don't feel thats what ahelp is for.

The people in the admin complaint thread immediately demanding to know who made the ahelp kinda... don't help this.
If people are making shitty ahelps then that can be dealt with by telling them to fuck off, but when people bitch at people for ahelping like it's tattling to the teacher or something, that's an attitude that should have been left behind when they grew out of being a schoolkid.

[Tornadium]

While I might agree a more hands off approach would be wise, not everyone ahelps, particually in situatiosn where they probably should. Now i'm not sure if thats because they don't know they can, they dont think they should (to do fear of judgement among their peers or other admins), or they don't feel thats what ahelp is for.

The people in the admin complaint thread immediately demanding to know who made the ahelp kinda... don't help this.
If people are making shitty ahelps then that can be dealt with by telling them to fuck off, but when people bitch at people for ahelping like it's tattling to the teacher or something, that's an attitude that should have been left behind when they grew out of being a schoolkid.

I asked because it is somewhat relevant.

If I'm not a Lizard, and an engineer wiring the fucking solars then AHelping that situation is mega shitty and somewhat relevant to why the admins would have gotten involved in the first place.

[Screemonster]

How about the people with observermode oversight and instant access to real-time logs decide whether it's relevant or not?

If the complaint is valid, then it's valid. If it isn't, then it isn't. Whether the person ahelping "hey guys, you might want to look at this before it spirals out of control" is directly involved is irrelevant.

[Tornadium]

How about the people with observermode oversight and instant access to real-time logs decide whether it's relevant or not?

If the complaint is valid, then it's valid. If it isn't, then it isn't. Whether the person ahelping "hey guys, you might want to look at this before it spirals out of control" is directly involved is irrelevant.

So I should go around AHelping every single thing I see that might be a rule break even if I'm not involved in it because "Hey my round is totally being ruined by that one dude doing something that affects that other dude and not me"?

[imblyings]

I do want players to be comfortable in bringing any legitimate concerns they have to admins, even if they're not directly involved. Ok maybe this is bit of a pipe dream and the incident between saeg/forceful obviously isn't the best example of it but still.

Admins being over-zealous is another issue entirely.

[Tornadium]

I do want players to be comfortable in bringing any legitimate concerns they have to admins, even if they're not directly involved. Ok maybe this is bit of a pipe dream and the incident between saeg/forceful obviously isn't the best example of it but still.

Admins being over-zealous is another issue entirely.

I get that but it just seems a little bit stupid for admins to be getting involved as a result of admin helps from people who are completely irrelevant to the issue when the people involved don't see a problem and are perfectly happy for circumstances to continue without that OOC intervention.

[imblyings]

That's the over-zealous part, I don't like over-zealous people either.

[peoplearestrange]

The people in the admin complaint thread immediately demanding to know who made the ahelp kinda... don't help this.

People can demand all they like but it won't get them anywhere.
As far as I can recall no one who has a helped, who wasn't directly involved (I.e. the victim or perpetrator), haven't yet to be revealed.

Ahelps are filtered from logs for this reason and this privacy is meant to instil confidence in ahelping privately. While we don't directly have a rule that prevents this I'd like to think its largely an unwritten one that admins will obey and it wouldn't go down lightly if they did do it.

[Saegrimr]

If we were to actively look for reasons to ban people with no prompt there would be nobody left.

If there is a complaint about someone's actions, it's going to be dealt with.

If the reported action is a common occurrence, its going to be dealt with.