Forum Moderator/Admin Feedback/Complaints General

[ABearInTheWoods]

Bottom post of the previous page:

It kept going off topic.

[Malkevin]

But how can it be going off topic when the topic was about lag in general and people were talking about lag in general?

[ABearInTheWoods]

I locked it because all people started talking about was the deletion of the posts and what kinds of lags people know about

[CPTANT]

I locked it because all people started talking about was the deletion of the posts and what kinds of lags people know about

Yes because it was a serious dick move to destroy all content and suggestions people posted all for a misunderstanding about the topic


Apparently instead of making the difference clear between network lag and cpu lag in a post you decided to destroy the thread and 3 quarters of its posts.


In what world does that make any fucking sense?

[imsxz]

Deleted posts on my admin feedback thread of people saying "i love imsxz". That is certainly feedback. Not cool!

I believe admin feedback is moderated in much too strict of a fashion. If someone shitposts, I believe it's fair to assume that they probably have interacted with the admin enough to feel like leaving feedback, as well as that they are unlikely displeased with the admins conduct, as most people would give genuine negative feedback rather than a dumb meaningless comment. Admin feedback isn't the sort of thing that gets floods of new posts outside of rare occasions where people get into a heated discussion or something, I don't think shitposts would drown out genuine positive feedback, especially as most shitposts are short like "they smell". Of course it is subjective, but I believe a majority of the admins asked would prefer a shitpost every now and then rather than zero feedback ever.

[Arianya]

the issue that arises is that allowing a "shitpost every now and then" blurs the line on what is acceptable in feedback in general - I'm sure we can both agree that feedback does serve a valuable role in allowing players to express praise or concerns and admins to receive feedback, and this role is diminished if the forum becomes seen as shitpost central or "you only post here to make an epic funny post about an admin xD"

I realise certain admins can feel a certain protectiveness of their feedback thread but I think it should be obvious why the rules should be enforced equally across the board.

[peoplearestrange]

If we allow shitposts, which by definition are shit, then whats the actual point in feedback?
I certainly don't "learn" anything by people telling me Im a furry or gay over and over, so why allow it?

What actually needs to change is people giving actual feedback and admins taking the time to listen and respond (even if its in disagreement) so it becomes a trusted feedback forum rather than just praise and negative things being erased or ignored.

EDIT: Also if its an admin having issue with another admin, they should probably make an attempt to directly contact them or talk to them on Admin-Bus as we are supposedly a team and the quickest way to get things resolved best for all parties can be done this way fairly effectively. No need to air dirty laundry (unless its being utterly ignored again and again ofc)

[Kangtut]

How is saying "I love (adminname)" a shitpost though? That's just positive feedback. A player felt strongly enough about a particular admin to express it in their feedback thread.

[Arianya]

To be clear, I don't have issues with "I love [adminname]" (it's a bit empty and pointless, but it is feedback) - I have more issue with emptyquoting, especially when it starts being chain emptyquotes, because it's not really feedback - just "THIS"ing stuff is empty and we really don't need echo chambers of people emptyquoting at each other outside of the Hut.

But that's my opinion, in any case, not citing it as objective fact.

[bobbahbrown]

would you prefer that the users in question post the exact same message without the quote block

[Kangtut]

would you prefer that the users in question post the exact same message without the quote block

Exactly. This seems more like a pet peeve rather than an objective rule.

[Arianya]

Given the nature of feedback isn't a popularity poll or the like, I'd rather people contribute with their own thoughts and words rather then emptily parroting 3 words, but in terms of an easy to draw line in the sand, yes, emptyquoting is best avoided IMO.

As for objective rule, this is technically already covered by global rules, though obviously a matter of interpretation rather then specific delineation:

1. No spam. (Contentless posts, repeated posts, off topic posts)
IE: when you post: think: "what will this post bring to the conversation".

[Kangtut]

I see your point. Contentless and repeated posts would apply to something like empty quoting. I suppose the question now would be would that need to be upheld in an admin's feedback if they dont mind it.

[peoplearestrange]

Because like the rest of FNR its held to a higher standard so it at least gives the appearance of professionalism and trust.

I see the forum as a sliding scale of trust/professionalism > memes/shitposting. FNR at the top, the hut at the bottom, everything else fitting along that scale.

[Kangtut]

If that were the case then there should be a lot more deleted posts because plenty of them are just as half assed as empty quoting. I can understand going harder on policy discussion and appeals but feedback always seemed to be the hut of fnr. Still held to a standard but not as heavily moderated from my experience with it anyway.

[peoplearestrange]

You're using the "They didn't get caught when they did it" excuse. Just because it has been done before and might have been missed (the amount of forum mods is pretty low rn) doesn't mean its an approval of said reply.

Put it like this, what critique does empty quoting provide, what's the feedback? Sure you're saying basically you have their back and thats actually pretty sweet on a friendly level. But the point of these threads isn't for that, its a comment on their actions and behavior as an admin.

[Kangtut]

How can they not be caught when their posts remain to this day? They could have been cleaned up at any point since they were made. Feedback is not always straight critque either as simply showing your approval for someone is positive feedback. Whether you agree with it or not is your own opinion and what happens to it should be left up to the one receiving the feedback. As for the purpose of the feedback threads, that is again, entirely your opinion. Feedback has no rules or guidlines of its own, unlike every single other fnr subforum. As Ari has shown, she had to pull from the site's general rules to justify their decision.

[oranges]

There's nobody above them to rule on this so their ruling is basically going to sit unchallenged.

[peoplearestrange]

How can they not be caught when their posts remain to this day? They could have been cleaned up at any point since they were made. Feedback is not always straight critque either as simply showing your approval for someone is positive feedback. Whether you agree with it or not is your own opinion and what happens to it should be left up to the one receiving the feedback. As for the purpose of the feedback threads, that is again, entirely your opinion. Feedback has no rules or guidlines of its own, unlike every single other fnr subforum. As Ari has shown, she had to pull from the site's general rules to justify their decision.

Well they're still there because going back and retroactively editing everyone's feedback (84 feedback threads) is more time than a lot of people who bother to moderate the forums have. I can only speak personally but its a chore to remove stuff, most of the time you just hope its obvious or someone complains about it to highlight it.

But yeah you're right, there definitely needs to be a set of rules for feedback. This is what it sounds like you're asking for, so buckle up.
I'll speak to the heads, write up some loose guidelines and put it round the others to comment on. Then we'll see what the heads take on them are and will try to implement then come the new year.

Would that be acceptable?

There's nobody above them to rule on this so their ruling is basically going to sit unchallenged.

I mean the heads are? They're voted in. I'm not sure what you mean if im honest.

[Kangtut]

and what happens to it should be left up to the one receiving the feedback.

But yeah you're right, there definitely needs to be a set of rules for feedback. This is what it sounds like you're asking for, so buckle up.
I'll speak to the heads, write up some loose guidelines and put it round the others to comment on. Then we'll see what the heads take on them are and will try to implement then come the new year.

I clearly said what I was asking for - leave it up to the admin receiving feedback to decide if it is shit posting that needs sweeping up. Creating new rules will lead to the same issues that we have now, meaning: you cannot possibly list everything people can and cannot post in feedback and will have to leave things up to a forum mod's discretion. This is what led to this 4 year old thread being revived in the first place. New rules will only give forum mods more needless things to memorize and more needless red tape for players to work around.

There are things that are clearly defined that a forum mod should delete such as NSFW content spam and posts that don't actually contribute to the thread. However, while the posts deleted that led to this discussion could possibly fall under this, it also can be argued that they do not. Sure they're half-assed empty quotes, but what difference would it be if they quoted and then said "this" or something equally pointless? It wouldn't be an empty quote then but it would still be the same. What harm is there in simple positive feedback followed by people parroting what the first person said? Even if you clean up an entire page of empty quotes all saying "I love X" then you still have a ton of "message deleted" posts between the next real post.

In summary: you don't need new rules, they won't do anything and leave ambiguous stuff like this up to the admin who is getting the feedback.

[peoplearestrange]

and what happens to it should be left up to the one receiving the feedback.

Except you're writing this about one case assuming the feedback is positive.
What if I remove everything I dislike from my feedback thread? Self censorship as it were, would you be happy with that? Because thats actually what you're asking for.

Of course rules don't need to list EVERY single possibility, don't be moronic. In the same way our server rules and forum rules don't list every single thing. But guidelines on what feedback is useful for and what is expected of both the players and the admin in question would probably help a lot.

The problem with empty quoting is saying "same" just isnt useful feedback, its low effort praise at absolute best and at worse it takes up tones of space. Sure deleted posts take up space but about 1/4 of the space a full empty quote post takes up, even before it pyramids. But this is such an irrelevant detail.

Because again, what you are asking for is a change for one specific example because you like said person and that about wraps it up.

[Kangtut]

Do you twist my words on purpose? Every god damn time I make a post your idiotically take what I say, ignore it and create your own warped idea of what I actually said. I even gave you a fucking tl;dr of my post and you still fucked it up, PAS.

[delaron]

Do you twist my words on purpose? Every god damn time I make a post your idiotically take what I say, ignore it and create your own warped idea of what I actually said. I even gave you a fucking tl;dr of my post and you still fucked it up, PAS.

Maybe you need to improve on your communication skills if they keep getting it wrong. Your viewpoint isn't the end all be all and is rather narrow in focus. Assuming the feedback threads sole purpose is to inform the subject of the feedback ignores other uses. Such as evaluating repeat issues for the head admin or general public making an informed decision when voting comes into play.

Some form of civility also will lead to a stronger conveyance of what points you are trying to make. Attacking wrapped up in your points just makes people want to ignore you.

[teepeepee]

kang just said admins should decide on their own if useless feedback and emptyquoting should be removed from their threads and you interpret it as "YOU WANT ADMINS TO DELETE THEIR OWN FEEDBACK TO HIDE THE BAD ONE"
I don't think kang is the one with communication issues really

[peoplearestrange]

kang just said admins should decide on their own if useless feedback and emptyquoting should be removed from their threads and you interpret it as "YOU WANT ADMINS TO DELETE THEIR OWN FEEDBACK TO HIDE THE BAD ONE"
I don't think kang is the one with communication issues really

Right ok this is much more clear. If you're making it SPECIFICALLY about empty quoting, then sure I don't see why the admin couldn't choose, but then that makes moderation a lot harder in general. Do we write a list of things admins are allowed to self moderate in their own threads? Because normally admins moderation their own feedback threads was frowned up. Obviously in the case you're talking about it be about leaving the post. But if it was in my thread it be ok to delete empty quoting (because I don't like it), right? But also what if I delete all the times people called me a furry, or everytime they gave feedback directly after a ban, or after an event they didn't like, or after they were involved with an ahelp that didn't go the way they wanted? Do I get to moderate them? When does someone else need to moderate them? Where is the line drawn?

The point Kang did actually draw to light is there isnt really any guidelines let alone rules for feedback. And this leaves a very large grey area. And ultimately this is what mostly cause disagreements and arguments on the forums right?

So whats the solution?

[teepeepee]

wait for them to ask for something to be deleted instead of being an overzealous jannie
how is that so hard?

[peoplearestrange]

Because it validates shitposts until they get noticed by their thread owner?

Same way we don't necessarily wait for an ahelp to ban some self antag who TTV's the station?

[deedubya]

Who cares if admins get to delete their own bad feedback? It means they've seen it, and they can choose to act on it or not. It's not like anything posted in the feedback forum ever gets taken seriously by anyone above them in the food chain. If you have a serious gripe and want them to shape up, post a complaint. Feedback forum is "officially" a joke. Only post negative feedback there if you think the admin in question is capable of receiving criticism and adjusting their behavior.

[Vekter]

Confining Deedubya to the shed and then burning it down is the best thing we ever did.

[Swept]

I'd appreciate it if you both deleted the forum and the discord for tgstation. It would put me at great peace of mind. Thanks.

[PKPenguin321]

I'd appreciate it if you both deleted the forum and the discord for tgstation. It would put me at great peace of mind. Thanks.

Little known fact is that you can do this yourself with very little trouble.
On your computer navigate to C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\
Edit the file named "hosts" as an admin
Copy and paste these two new lines to the bottom of it:

Code: Select all

127.0.0.1	https://tgstation13.org/
127.0.0.1	https://discord.com/

Once you've done that you will have successfully deleted both discord and tgstation forever.

[Ivuchnu]

hosts file hackermannery

URLs don't actually go in there. Domain names do. https://example.com/ is wrong while example.com is right. hosts file offers user to override how specific domain name is resolved into IP address, potentially bypassing DNS based content blocks or implementing said content block. Or making sort of alias for frequently used IP address without corresponding domain name...
EDIT: wait, no, it is thread about forum itself

[Swept]

Why'd you delete my Ikoden peanut?

[Saege Tilth]

Vekter muted me from using the help channel for supportmin because I complained about another admin in the channel. This has nothing to do with them at the time and them getting involved and telling me I can "pick my admin" while they're sitting there "picking their user" they want to deal with at the time. It was obvious they did it to power trip. Vekter uses their admin privilege's (and they are a privilege) the same way a grey tider can randomly shoot and kill the hos and be labelled an IC issue.

To summarize the entire story, I got murdered by two tiders, one which got off the arrival shuttle at the same time I did and threatened to max cap the brig. This wasn't an "escalation" matter or IC matter, as they where trying to kill me completely unprovoked while I was busy trying not to die to someone else who was doing the same thing. I asked for a supportmin and got one, but when they arrived, they instantly labelled it an IC issue and only stayed online for literally less than fifteen seconds. They just went online to label the report as an IC issue and leave. This isn't the first time this has happened. This is probably the fifth time. Last time Vekter was helping me personally, they literally started threatening me like if I was on /vg/ station. They act like it's an "inconvenience" for them to do the responsibilities of the role of admin and treat the admin role more as a social status. I'm surprised Vekter hasn't discord banned me yet, which I've only seen them speak in help which isn't good because they're the least helpful of the admins.

Here is what I said verbatim
"@Supportmin sybil station
Preferably an admin that actually WANTS to do their job and not one that wants to ban people for asking them to"
<admin comes online and labels it as IC issue>
"Next time I'll ask for an admin who doesn't just want to meet a quota so they can at least read some logs before calling something IC issue"

Here is what Vekter said when a supportmin already dealt with the situation that wasn't Vekter
"I mean I can just mute you from #help if you'd rather
Actually yeah, I'm going to do that. Don't fucking admin shop.
If you use a supportmin ping to admin shop you will be muted from the channel. Only warning."

This isn't a personal attack on Vekter I'm making. They're genuinely some kind of narcissist and are abusing their authority because they get pleasure from it. Vekter runs the show as anarcho-tyranny. Reread what Vekter said that I copy pasted.

"If you use a supportmin ping to admin shop you will be muted from the channel. Only warning."

They did mute me yet they use the words "only warning". This is pure ban baiting. Ask yourself if every judge, lawyer, and police officer in real life acted this way how many people would be enthusiastic about moving there so they can get told to deal with it when a problem happens unless an admins feelings get hurt. This is some cyberpunk 2077 type corruption.

They later started pming me inside tgstation channel

Vekter
"@Saege Tilth go pound sand
pinging supportmin because you're not happy with how another admin handled the issue is the definition of admin shopping
and is bannable
so don't do it
it's when you are dissatisfied with an admin's ruling on a situation so you look for another one to handle it
No, it's considered to be underhanded and goes against normal policy. If you disagree with an admin's ruling on a topic you should make a complaint, not try to find an admin that'll agree with you."

Me
"You're using a slippery slope argument. I wasn't admin shopping. I was stating what I wish an admin would do, not who would do it.
also why are you still on about that?"

Vekter
"You outright pinged looking for another admin to handle the issue"

[Vekter]

I already unmuted you from the channel. If you weren't an asshole about admins not jumping immediately to helping you as soon as you ask for it, then maybe you wouldn't be treated like shit for it.

You decided, after an admin did as you asked, to request another admin jump in. This is textbook admin shopping - the admin in question ruled your situation as an IC issue (Likely because the people involved were antags, though I haven't looked at the round in question) and, unsatisfied with that ruling, you requested another one. I will admit that muting you was excessive - hence why I removed it - but this is completely unwarranted.

Also I put you in my signature because it's funny when people say I'm angry about something while they're heaping their fucking lid about it.

[bobbahbrown]

round 152588 on Sybil, Saege Tilth (Ulrichenstein) was playing as Eric David Harris, the Head of Security. (src, statbus, scrubby)

because nobody seemingly wants to look into this and would instead speculate and bicker...

he was seemingly attempting to arrest a non-antag assistant, Phillip Thomas (Realthoman_), who seemed to be very pleased when the HoS was stunned during the arrest by an antagonist lawyer, Seth Hawker. So much so in fact that he stripped the HoS while the traitor beat him to death, and even helped kill the HoS himself.

pretty iffy!

merry christmas,
bobbah 'bee' brown

[oranges]

saeg tilth has spent the last 3 months shitposting in politics general and now that nobody gives him any attention there, it appears he has turned to the rest of the channels.

sad to see