wesoda wrote:I think all admins should make an effort to inform the ahelper as to the outcome of an investigation/discussion, but not the specifics of punishment (if any). An admin saying they’ll look into something and then after a while giving a simple “handled” is bad. I think it removes accountability and also just isn’t helpful to the ahelper: by touching base with the ahelper you can help develop their understanding of the rules further, which is something every admin should want. You also may have to defend your interpretation of the rules, which is good.
Exactly, this is the only thing I am pushing for. I also remember that tickets with you specifically did this, and it really makes a world of difference to the player who was just wronged by somebody.
Sylphet wrote:We have outside observers of a situation handle things for a reason, and I do not want my every ahelp to turn into an argument of how harsh I need to be with people who have zero knowledge of any kind of mitigating factors
The idea would be after handling it, and informing the ahelper of the outcome, the discussion would be closed. You'd simply end the ticket (maybe give a few seconds for the player to say thanks or something). There'd be no argument. If they whined about the results you could just close the ticket. You'd be under no obligation to continue the discussion after you've ruled on it as an admin.
Sylphet wrote:Anne Tagonist walks up and shoots you in the face. You are now dead. You ahelp, because - "what the fuck, grief ??"
You observe Anne Tagonist after they kill you and notice, oh, they're an antagonist, and then you decide not to ahelp. If they didn't do this and ahelped an antag then just ghost their ticket, that's the best way of withholding the IC info honestly.
Sylphet wrote:Alternatively, I tell you nothing except "It was handled appropriately." This preserves the metaknowledge that you can have, neither confirming nor denying that she is a traitor. I have now broken admin conduct because I didn't tell you what I did. It puts me as an admin in a position where I have to tell you exactly what I did or didn't do - I might as well just put some maptext over their head, writing VALID SALAD in bright pink comic sans.
No matter how you choose to respond, the system can be "gamed." That sort of response sounds pretty artificial, so if they're trying to sneak in metaknowledge they'll assume that any ahelps that don't ask for followups and additional info but are ominously resolved with "The situation was handled appropriately," are antags. That's why the best bet is just to ghost the ahelp or mark it an IC-issue, IMO. They can think you're a bad admin all they want until they see the roundend then feel dumb about it.
Sylphet wrote:I absolutely have no issue with jannies telling people that someone was banned - and like I said, I do it when appropriate. I have a serious issue with forcing us to do it, this is very poorly thought through in my mind.
Maybe the title of the thread is misleading - I wanted it to be short and to-the-point. I'm really only advocating that players who are actually griefed by nonantags, get some semblance of resolution to their ticket that makes them feel better. It sucks to be griefed, hear "handled," see the guy wasn't an antag, and then see them in the next round. "Guess it wasn't really handled after all" you'd think.
Again, I see no issue with the solution of letting players know the outcome of a ticket. if the issue is indirectly leaking metaknowledge, then I'd say antags being ahelped would just be ghosted by the admins, or marked an IC-issue. Preferably the former since the player will assume the admin just didn't have time for the ticket, didn't see it, etc.