Administrative Section "Must be Involved" - How involved?

[Pandarsenic]

Bottom post of the previous page:

If someone was in the round and goes, "I didn't see what they did there, but they did this (un?)related shitty thing," is that a relevant post? I'm iffy, but leaning to 'yes.'
If someone was not in the round and goes, "They did a similar thing in this round, too," is that a relevant post? I'm definitely leaning yes on this one.
If someone was not in the round and goes, "I didn't see what they did there, but they did this (un?)related shitty thing," is that a relevant post? I'm thinking not, with case-by-case "It's sort of related" potential. There's an obvious difference between 'But he sometimes steals the flash from the arrivals checkpoint' and 'I thought he was supposed to be permabanned for metagaming?'

I'd like other people to contribute on this topic but keep in mind:
This is not so people can stenograph. That's a different subject. This is about what IS relevant to an IMMEDIATE, ONGOING ban request or appeal for actions taken in a specific round.

[cultist-chan]

Yes, it refers to in-game admins. Are you being ironic again?

If it was in game admins then the situation would have been settled when I asked the headmins about it.

He's(Deutryn) in charge of in-game policy. I was part of many discussions that you were not when this forum was created and we were determining how it would be run, and it was very conclusively decided that we would not have stenography/peanut gallery. Deuryn is absolutely the last word when it comes to in-game issues, but that has nothing to do with the forum rules or hierarchy. That's been true since the original forum.

[Hornygranny]

If it was in game admins then the situation would have been settled when I asked the headmins about it.

This is not in-game policy, and doesn't affect the way issues are handled in-game.

[cultist-chan]

If it was in game admins then the situation would have been settled when I asked the headmins about it.

This is not in-game policy, and doesn't affect the way issues are handled in-game.

As I was alluding to when I said "administration". It doesn't refer to the commuity or even the in game admins. Most people were left out of the loop when this group of people decided to create new rules on the forum. Roro at least consulted the community before changing everything upside down (exception for this current situation which was a cluster-fuck)

The whole situation about this is caused because a select few people who are making new rules out of self interest and hubris without consulting the community as a whole. The people who made these new rules believe that

• You should have no say if you aren't a admin on someone elses ban
• You should only report things if a administrator is not on and you feel whiny enough to say "Mc assistant griffed me" even if its someone who steals ID badges constantly or shit like that.

A good example
Now McGriffin might have touched you in a bad way but you're probably not going to report him being a douche (unless its serious). If someone does see something serious its reported but now you can't report your previous issues because (it doesn't relate to the issue at hand) and honestly you don't have the logs for it.

[Hornygranny]

If you have enough information to report them for doing it in a ban request you were not part of, you have enough information to make your own thread at that time.

[cultist-chan]

If you have enough information to report them for doing it in a ban request you were not part of, you have enough information to make your own thread at that time.

Sometimes you don't know how shit someone is till someone else posts about it. By then its too late. More to the point.

If you feel your policy is so correct put it to a vote amongst the players. They're the ones making the reports. They're the ones dealing with this utter waste of time.

This stuff shouldn't be done behind closed doors and there should NOT be a separate hierarchy on the forums aside from the host of the forums.

[Aurx]

This stuff shouldn't be done behind closed doors

At the very fucking least, if you're changing the interpretation a section of text, make it damn clear you've changed the interpretation.
At the very fucking least, let the people who are supposed to act on a what's posted on a forum voice opinions before changing it.

[Hornygranny]

Sometimes you don't know how shit someone is till someone else posts about it. By then its too late.

So if you're allowed to post unrelated incidents in a ban request you'll remember something not worth its own thread, but if you're not allowed to post unrelated incidents in a ban request, you won't remember? I'm not seeing your argument here.

If you feel your policy is so correct put it to a vote amongst the players. They're the ones making the reports. They're the ones dealing with this utter waste of time.

That's backwards. Game admins are the ones who deal with reports, and they know how they can be best helped. If I let the users of a company vote on how their HR or IT teams dealt with issues, it would be a complete mess.

This stuff shouldn't be done behind closed doors and there should NOT be a separate hierarchy on the forums aside from the host of the forums.

Where do you think this came from? Both SOS and the forum host approve of the "not involved" clause.

[Psyentific]

Holy shit

The last two pages of this thread has been nothing but a back and forth between Cultist Chan and HG. I can't even tell what you two are bickering about anymore. Mods, clean this thread up and HG and CC can take it to PMs.


HG, Hibbles, Nik Nak, whomever. Senior Administration and Policy makers. Example scenario and question.

Player One has a ban request made against him by Player Two. In this ban request, Player Two provides logs, provides all relevant information, and is only slightly biased and very truthful.
However, the issue that Player Two cites is, taken by itself, iffy. Bad, but not definitively bannable in isolation.
Player Three, who has a long history with Player One, enters the thread, providing times, people and information about seperate incidents with Player One.
For a long time, Player Three has thought that Player One is bad, but has never made a ban request for an arbitrary reason. His intent is to back up Player Two's ban request, which, on its own, would likely not see Player One banned.

For purposes of discussion, all players involved are putting effort into their cases and are not shitposting. The outcome is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Is Player Three subject to administrative action here? If so, Why?
Should Player Three have made his own FNRs for each seperate incident?
Are FNRs considered on a By-Player basis, or on a By-Incident basis?

Explain your answers to each question and the reasoning behind them in at least three sentences.

[Hornygranny]

I would split Player Three's post(s) into their own thread, because they should have made a separate topic for the incidents, as this forum works on a per-incident basis. If the notes/threads about a problem player clearly represent a pattern of behavior, they'd likely be punished more severely than they normally would for two separate incidents, which has historically been true for both ban requests and in game bans. Please understand that I'm not saying I'm going to delete your posts and ban you if you post your own incidents in someone's thread, I want you to make your own so everyone can be judged fairly in each incident and threads don't turn into bandwagons.

[cultist-chan]

That's backwards. Game admins are the ones who deal with reports, and they know how they can be best helped. If I let the users of a company vote on how their HR or IT teams dealt with issues, it would be a complete mess.

Except... We don't work at a company
Except You aren't HR here you're a unpaid volunteer on 2d space game
Except: You aren't any better than anyone else.

Don't pretend this is something that it's not. Users are the ones making the reports. So sorry you have to read them.

Holy shit

The last two pages of this thread has been nothing but a back and forth between Cultist Chan and HG. I can't even tell what you two are bickering about anymore. Mods, clean this thread up and HG and CC can take it to PMs.

We have. We disagree totally.

I would split Player Three's post(s) into their own thread, because they should have made a separate topic for the incidents, as this forum works on a per-incident basis. If the notes/threads about a problem player clearly represent a pattern of behavior, they'd likely be punished more severely than they normally would for two separate incidents, which has historically been true for both ban requests and in game bans. Please understand that I'm not saying I'm going to delete your posts and ban you if you post your own incidents in someone's thread, I want you to make your own so everyone can be judged fairly in each incident and threads don't turn into bandwagons.

How can you possibly claim that when you didn't in a situation JUST LIKE THIS ONE? It hasn't even been a week since you did it either! You issued a blanket board warning to people involved AND you just deleted peoples posts. Nor did you post/move the new threads about it. You just deleted it all. Refer to this.

The issue here is that in the most recent Ban Request thread, nearly every single post got flagged for a warning (Including my own, even if it doesn't show it - I've PM'd Hornygranny regarding this) including the ones that did add helpful information to the request, namely that the person in question wasn't playing to the standards that we expect on the servers.

I think it would be helpful for HG to give his two cents here about why he did this in the first place, unless it happened to be an automated thing with his name attached to it for whatever reason. It all seems cut and dry what posts are and are not 'valid' for the request.

The policy sticky in the Ban Request forum needs to have it's wording tweaked a bit if we're allowed to bring up objective past examples of similar behavior for the request. Several instances of bad behavior on the part of a player is much, much easier to spot and make a judgement call upon than just one.

[Hornygranny]

My disagreement with CC will never be resolved because it is essentially "I want this" "We don't want that" repeated over and over again. In Psyentific's example, the third party added posts with "times, information and people" regarding similar incidents from the same person. The deleted posts didn't meet that criteria. King got warned because I accidentally opened their post in a new tab instead of one of the other ones.

[cultist-chan]

The deleted posts didn't meet that criteria.

Then help them fix that ffs. Even if this is a new rule, the least you could do is HELP people transition.

[Psyentific]

I would split Player Three's post(s) into their own thread, because they should have made a separate topic for the incidents, as this forum works on a per-incident basis. If the notes/threads about a problem player clearly represent a pattern of behavior, they'd likely be punished more severely than they normally would for two separate incidents, which has historically been true for both ban requests and in game bans. Please understand that I'm not saying I'm going to delete your posts and ban you if you post your own incidents in someone's thread, I want you to make your own so everyone can be judged fairly in each incident and threads don't turn into bandwagons.

>One thread per Incident
>public forum
>clean and efficient
why

All that's going to do is clutter the forum up with things that should be in the same thread. If you work off by incident, you're going to lose a lot of stuff to the cracks because, quite frankly, a lot of stuff doesn't warrant its own thread. I've been in the same boat as the (still purely hypothetical) Player Three in the example - I don't like a guy's playstyle, I think he's bad, but I never cared enough to gather evidence or properly FNR. Most FNRs are made when someone either transitions from toeing a line to crossing it, or when someone really screws up. If you want to document the line-toeing, there's far better ways to do it than this - I for one don't want to make a thread for every time I'm greytided - I'd spend the first fifteen of half my rounds putting together a post.

Especially for purposes of establishing a pattern, unless you want to explicitly tell people to FNR every single thing, you're going to get a lot of people like who didn't like something, but don't really want to go to the effort of fussing about it. Do you really want to deal with a new thread every half-handful of rounds, all so you can establish a clear pattern of behaviour? It's far easier to do the new-old-style, player based and open to contribution, but moderated - What we've seen so far. I'm not gonna make my own thread to whine about that one bad round I had, that's just gonna shit up the forums; if someone makes a thread and I have something to contribute, I will.

If I was going to high-effort the whole thing? I'd have a confidential report system, styled after tickets. Submit logs, a summary of the incident, what you think was bad about it. Put those into a set of private files categorized by ckey and accessible to the submitting player and admins only, and allow ban requests to be made by players. The collected tickets come into play on ban requests, and effectively function as out of game player notes. Bring back Stenography to provide a place to discuss FNRs and peanut gallery, with dedicated moderators to curb the inevitable shitposting.

There's your incident-based system, the popular player-based system, as well as the much-requested return of Stenography, all implemented in parallel.

For that matter, a fair amount of people are still unclear why Stenography is gone in the first place. Every time I've seen it brought up, I've gotten a non-answer. So-and-So said this, or "community" said that, or just plain ignored. There's a fair number of things I see in FNR and want to peanut gallery on (#freefisac), but I can't - FNR is heavily moderated, and Stenography is gone. You've also got a list of people who volunteered to mod Stenography exclusively. Why don't we have it?

[Pandarsenic]

In Psyentific's example, the third party added posts with "times, information and people" regarding similar incidents from the same person. The deleted posts didn't meet that criteria.

But warnings were given for Psy and Napkin's posts that did meet those standards?

[Psyentific]

In Psyentific's example, the third party added posts with "times, information and people" regarding similar incidents from the same person. The deleted posts didn't meet that criteria.

But warnings were given for Psy and Napkin's posts that did meet those standards?

The base issue is that a blanket warning was applied to the thread, catching quite a few posts that really shouldn't have been touched. Lazy moderation.

[Pandarsenic]

Both of the posts I mentioned, citing Fuzzle's recent behavior, were moved to the FNR deletion archival thread.

http://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=216

[Hornygranny]

Those clearly do not meet the standards for starting a thread. If they did, they would have been split.

[scaredofshadows]

Is there a way we can allow uninvolved parties to comment in a different subforum without causing confusion?

Players who want to comment in constructive ways should be given such an outlet. Even players who simply wish to add their agreement or disagreement with a ban or decision should have some way to do so.

[Jordie0608]

They could always just jabber their thoughts away at http://singulo.io

[Pandarsenic]

Could work, or they can post to wherever else - off-topic maybe, or...?

[Psyentific]

For that matter, a fair amount of people are still unclear why Stenography is gone in the first place. Every time I've seen it brought up, I've gotten a non-answer. So-and-So said this, or "community" said that, or just plain ignored. There's a fair number of things I see in FNR and want to peanut gallery on (#freefisac), but I can't - FNR is heavily moderated, and Stenography is gone. You've got a sizable number of people who want Stenography, you've also got a list of people who volunteered to moderate Stenography exclusively. Why don't we have it?

pls respond

[Jordie0608]

The reason for no more peanut gallery stems from a "no shitposting rule" for this forum. The 'Trash bin' section was made for such posts to go. Long, stupid or ridiculous signatures are a part of this.

There won't be a peanut gallery or stenography thread. Those were used for pure shitposting. If you have an issue with a player please create an actual ban request. If you have an issue with an admin please create an actual admin complaint.

You've said it yourself, "Steno won't add much to the average posting quality of the forum", so what's the purpose of bringing it back? "I just need my dedicated shitpost forum" - nobody needs an entire dedicated shitpost forum. That's what we're trying to get away from here.

RE: The link you posted - There's a "Report Post" button. We encourage you to use it. We're only people too, and unfortunately can't read everything all the time (even though we try).

I can see the gap that it fills, there seems to be a demand for policy discussion, ban discussion, player behavior discussion, and admin behavior discussion merged, rather than segregated.

The reason I've been silent on this till now, is I can't quite place where it fits on the fine line, would allowing it make this place shitter than we'd like, or would not allowing it make this place more 1984 than we'd like.

Basically Rock doesn't want anything like stenography on the forums, and I agree with him there. We would like this to be a more professional and civil board so as to avoid some of the variety of issues that arose last time leading to the creation of this board. Removing stenography is part of that.

However there is nothing to stop anyone who wants to from forming an ad-hoc stenography wherever the hell they want, so long as it isn't here; IRC, 4chan, http://singulo.io

[Psyentific]

Thank you for going to the effort of digging up quotes. I still think that a moderated, shitpost-lite stenography would be beneficial, providing a first-party place for related but not relevant discussion, but I now see your reasons and agree with a few of them.

I agree that the shitposting in FNR was the worst part of FNR, and I like the moderated, professional feel of FNR Mk II, but even with Singulo I don't feel like I have a proper place to yell "Stay banned, fagit" when someone appeals a perma for mass murder the very next day.

[Brotemis]

I was of the opinion that stenography was a shithouse and deserving of its wiping off the face of the Internet before it was cool.


Good to see some common sense concerning how much (little) shit is going to be tolerated here.

[420goslingboy69]

>we want to be professional and civil
Boring, unfun, and uncustomary of a 4chan server; censorship is also a thing that shouldn't be on a 4chan server.

[Apsis]

I'd support a moderated Steno also. You guys didn't really learn anyway. It was never the actual problem, and the actual problem is probably unfix-able.

Could work, or they can post to wherever else - off-topic maybe, or...?

Won't work if things can be deleted off the fly. It's nicer to see whats been deleted like what we do on the forums here.

IRC, 4chan, http://singulo.io

OOC usually works too.

[oranges]

Without a Steno this forum will be dead within a few months.

[Psyentific]

Without a Steno this forum will be dead within a few months.

We're not allowed to post in FNRs if we are not either the OP, an Admin, or the person being FNR'd. This is regardless of post content and relevancy.
We're not allowed to commentate on FNRs on-site, because FNR itself is heavily moderated and Steno is gone.

We can watch the trainwreck happen, but we're powerless to stop it.

[Jeb]

Without a Steno this forum will be dead within a few months.

We're not allowed to post in FNRs if we are not either the OP, an Admin, or the person being FNR'd. This is regardless of post content and relevancy.
We're not allowed to commentate on FNRs on-site, because FNR itself is heavily moderated and Steno is gone.

We can watch the trainwreck happen, but we're powerless to stop it.

Not being able to commentate on FNR's is not going to kill the official site of tgstation servers.

It's been said multiple times, if you have an issue with a player, open a thread. Nobody can get past the whole BUT WHERE DO I SHITPOST mentality that they gained on the old forums.

[Psyentific]

Without a Steno this forum will be dead within a few months.

We're not allowed to post in FNRs if we are not either the OP, an Admin, or the person being FNR'd. This is regardless of post content and relevancy.
We're not allowed to commentate on FNRs on-site, because FNR itself is heavily moderated and Steno is gone.

We can watch the trainwreck happen, but we're powerless to stop it.

Not being able to commentate on FNR's is not going to kill the official site of tgstation servers.

It's been said multiple times, if you have an issue with a player, open a thread. Nobody can get past the whole BUT WHERE DO I SHITPOST mentality that they gained on the old forums.

What if I don't want to shitpost? That's really my problem here. I read FNRs - I read all the FNRs. Most of the time, on the old forum, I'd leave a trivial comment. "Stay banned, fagit" - I can't do that on the new forums, and I'm okay with that. I'd like to be able to do it, sure. It's always fun to publicly laugh at the shitters appealing a ban for non-antag murderbone on the same day.

But most of the time, the OP of an FNR puts in a token effort. I'd point to Mimey's ban request, but in particular and more relevantly Here, Ban Req for Sam8411. The former, Mimey, was blanket moderated. I admit, my first post in the thread was purely anecdotal, however I gave a time frame within 48 hours and provided four incidents. No, I didn't have timestamped logs, but quite frankly I shouldn't need them. The second, in Sam8411, was my own account of the events in the OP - Under my interpretation of policy, the only reason it wasn't trashcanned was because it was the same event.

Quite plainly, that should not be.

By basing FNRs off incidents instead of players, you're going to lose so much to people like me, who don't want to go to the trouble of putting up a full FNR and maintaining a thread for each seperate incident of someone being bad. I prefer to bandwagon, because it allows someone else to make the thread, but also allows me to pitch in and support their arguement - Again, see Sam8411, where I did all the heavy lifting.

Yes, I agree that the worst part of the old FNRs was that it wasn't moderated - That entire ban appeals/requests could be derailed by pure shitposting. Thus, Steno. Steno fills a niche, and that niche is in demand by a vocal segment of the playerbase. Denying it because it's pure shitposting is bad - The entire point of steno is shitposting, yelling "STAY B& FAGET". I'm very much in favor of a heavily moderated, clean and professional FNR, but there's a lot of stuff I want to say that I can't say. Half of that is supporting someone's case in FNR - here and here. The other half is peanut gallerying - Steno. Somewhere you actively funnel shitposts into, so you don't have to deal with them and so I have a place to do it. Make Steno an unlocked subforum of FNR Trash.

[AseaHeru]

What Psy said. Basing it off of a player is rather silly and will just result in piles of posts, or no posts at all, basing it on a player will actually have a change of this trash brought to light.


And not all of Steno was shitposting, a small chunk of it was people discussing things, like in one case my pointing out that another server banned the same person for the same reasons.

[MisterPerson]

You're not helping your case when the best you can do is "a small chunk of posts wasn't shitposting".

[Hornygranny]

This is a good opportunity to remind you that the forum is a service for the game, and not the other way around. FNR exists solely so we can handle administrative issues. If the rest of the forum dies because there's no stenography, I absolutely do not care.

[Psyentific]

This is a good opportunity to remind you that the forum is a service for the game, and not the other way around. FNR exists solely so we can handle administrative issues. If the rest of the forum dies because there's no stenography, I absolutely do not care.

Do you not give a shit about the community? Because posting that sounds like you don't give a shit about the community.

You're not helping your case when the best you can do is "a small chunk of posts wasn't shitposting".

I would like somewhere to talk about FNRs and maybe shitpost.

[Aurx]

This is a good opportunity to remind you that the forum is a service for the game, and not the other way around. FNR exists solely so we can handle administrative issues. If the rest of the forum dies because there's no stenography, I absolutely do not care.

Do you not give a shit about the community? Because posting that sounds like you don't give a shit about the community.

It sounds to me like he doesn't care about the forum community. I don't see any reason he should have to care about the forum community. I sure as hell don't.

[Psyentific]

This is a good opportunity to remind you that the forum is a service for the game, and not the other way around. FNR exists solely so we can handle administrative issues. If the rest of the forum dies because there's no stenography, I absolutely do not care.

Do you not give a shit about the community? Because posting that sounds like you don't give a shit about the community.

It sounds to me like he doesn't care about the forum community. I don't see any reason he should have to care about the forum community. I sure as hell don't.

The forum community is composed almost entirely of your core players - The ones who care enough to register, come here semi-often, and post about spacemen with like-minded people. If there's one subset of the playerbase you should give a shit about, it's this one.

If you don't give a shit about the community, why are you here? Why are you going out of your way to administrate and moderate it? Why would you take time and effort to code something for people that you don't care about?

[Hornygranny]

I don't agree at all. Historically, the most active forum users were the ones who did not really play the game. One of the most vocal users had played the game less than 30 times, and hadn't connected for weeks. Even if the forum is now comprised of the diehard players, it doesn't change my opinion. Nobody is going to stop playing the game because they don't have stenography. The game is the community, and what serves the game serves the community.

[Psyentific]

No, the community isn't going to magically die because we don't have somewhere to shitpost. That was someone else arguing the extreme.
I still want Steno back, though - There's a niche here that isn't being filled. There's discussion to be had that isn't being had. Me, and a lot of other people, have things to say and no place to say them. Yeah, you can point to /tg/ proper, but really we shouldn't be bringing tangentally related drama onto /tg/ proper unless there's already an SS13 thread up, and even then. You can point to singulo.io, but singulo is so slow that there's been no posts in the last twelve hours. A first-party place really is better than all the alternatives, and, since you've got a list of people who wanted to be dedicated stenography mods, you really have nothing to lose.

[420goslingboy69]

I do not understand why having Stenography is a bad thing. Why the adamanc-y on such a frivolous thing if it's wanted by the forum community?

[Brotemis]

It was a cesspool of shit that spewed nothing but venom. It's been said multiple times that there won't be a stenography and you keep asking.

It's time to come to terms with reality.

[Psyentific]

It was a cesspool of shit that spewed nothing but venom. It's been said multiple times that there won't be a stenography and you keep asking.

It's time to come to terms with reality.

since you've got a list of people who wanted to be dedicated stenography mods, you really have nothing to lose.

[Brotemis]

Again, reality check.

If you're moderating and cleaning up a pile of shit...


It's still a pile of shit.

[Stephie]

No, it was not a cesspool of shit that spewed nothing but venom. It also was not a pile of shit.

There, an all around better and otherwise superior counterargument.

Also, now may be a good time to remind you that you can shitpost and spew venom on any subforum, it's not some innate magical property that's somehow unique to peanuts.

[Psyentific]

Again, reality check.

If you're moderating and cleaning up a pile of shit...


It's still a pile of shit.

The solution to venomous shitposting is Moderation - Keeping the board on its original purpose, the threads on topic, and the shitposters in check. I'm trying to tell you that you've got the solution to the main reason Steno's gone - Heck, you've got it in spades. I'd step forward if nobody else did, because by this point I'm one of the most persistent advocates of bringing back steno. I even think I'd do a pretty good job of it, too.

Oh, check this out.

Is there a way we can allow uninvolved parties to comment in a different subforum without causing confusion?

Players who want to comment in constructive ways should be given such an outlet. Even players who simply wish to add their agreement or disagreement with a ban or decision should have some way to do so.

"Is there a way we can bring back steno?" - scaredofshadows.

[Apsis]

A place to discuss bans has always been good. The fuck is wrong with that? If you can't trust people to be civil with moderation present then why even have policy, code, and general game discussions?

It was a cesspool of shit that spewed nothing but venom.

Steno didn't even do that. Most of the venom came from other parts of the forums a lot more. If anything steno was really slow. Remember that thread about you? Where was it? Not steno.
Though I'm sure once we get one of those bans we can use the policy discussion forums instead. While we can't talk about the ban itself we can talk about policies related to it, and use it as a reference.

[Jordie0608]

The 'Stenography Decision', as it's come to be known, has been discussed between myself, the other forum admins and #adminbus and it has been decided that; since the FNR boards are intended for the benefit of the administration team and how they wish to run proceedings is up to administrative policy decisions, the existence of stenography is a matter that will be decided by headmins. Furthermore this decision may be deferred until a new round of headmins are appointed by SoS so as to make the transition there more smooth.

I have also discussed with [rock] about the possibility of a 'trial run' for stenography to occur at some point in the future, however there is no guarantee if that will actually happen or not as it is naturally dependent on the decision made by headmins.

In the time being; as was suggested before, use http://singulo.io for all your anonymous discussion of whatever you want.

[bandit]

So why was Anon3 -- an admin -- trashed for saying he'll unban a guy when he gets home?

[Ikarrus]

It was an imposter.

[bandit]

...well that's a good reason.

[Helios127]

So if players cant comment on bans, can the rule also stick to admins as well?

Because one thing I really hate seeing are admins dogpiling, each planning to outdo one another with a harsher punishment then the last

[Pandarsenic]

So if players cant comment on bans, can the rule also stick to admins as well?

Because one thing I really hate seeing are admins dogpiling, each planning to outdo one another with a harsher punishment then the last

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Could you link whatever you're referring to?