Admin intervention with no ahelps

[NoH8OnlyLove]

Bottom post of the previous page:

My recent vacation has made me think about what had transpired and I'd like to know the consensus of admins intervening with an IC incident that is minor in nature with no prior ahelp simply because they're hunting for someone to ban. Should admins step in on an issue that is relatively minor if no one had sent an ahelp?

[TehSteveo]

Well how do school teachers do it? They manage to keep notes and judge students fairly without relying only on notes given by a different teacher. What is their secret? Meetings. You hold periodic admin meetings where you discuss the behaviour of players who got most notes in the latest period, every admin who had experience with them shares his feedback and at the end a decision is reached to outright ban them or to replace all previous notes with a generic note which details his most common behaviour. That, and all notes are removed after a fixed period of time if the player was never named in a meeting.

I doubt most admins wants to start holding some scheduled meeting to discuss players. I know for myself being as mostly any meetings I've partaken in any previous iteration in other games and professionally usually result in nothing much different than what is already done.

[feem]

I don't understand any positive distinction between writing notes about what players have done and their interactions with the admins in a way that other admins can view them and each admin keeping separate track of their interactions with players and then sharing that information voluntarily in a meeting.

[kevinz000]

expecting every single admin to go to a periodic meeting to "talk" whether literally with TS/discord/that crap or figuratively with IRC like it's normally done is ridiculous grazyn.
just sayin man.

[Qbopper]

i'm almost certain there were a few incidents of people being punished for relatively minor things because they had a history of shit behaviour, but said shit behaviour wasn't documented so it caused a big mess

i'm also pretty sure i was involved with one or two of them, but my memory of events is laughably awful

[oranges]

How do you feel about the hot fresh meme still running strong known as antag murderboning the entire station with the "Steal a mole of plasma" objective or variant thereof? Not like there's a rule unless they specifically keep the shuttle from being called with basically everyone dead or camping arrivals.

are you a newfag or some shit
they are antags, they can fuck up the station ALL THEY WANT. you will die, you will deal with it, you will play like the rest of us. if you hate murderbones that much then switch servers or leave ss13

>Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 10:33 pm

I mean, it is like this, it doesn't have to necessarily be. If someone murderbones with the same old shit like ebow esword, it's something everyone has seen a thousand times, it does get boring, and a ton of people don't get to play for the round OR spectate something interesting because one guy thinks that turning sprites horizontal is just the best.

>Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:38 pm

[oranges]

Also it's funny cobby ignored the contradiction in his post pointed out by Wyzack lol

[Grazyn]

expecting every single admin to go to a periodic meeting to "talk" whether literally with TS/discord/that crap or figuratively with IRC like it's normally done is ridiculous grazyn.
just sayin man.

Well then this means that the process isn't working as intended, if admins still need to rely on overwhelming proof to identify troublesome (or, in school jargon, "resource-intensive") players who keep rule-lawyering and admin-shopping and toe-lining around their notes.

[Cobby]

Also it's funny cobby ignored the contradiction in his post pointed out by Wyzack lol

As I said in the appeal, I think the whole gimmick of being a borg is abiding by the laws. If you want to make wrestle mania as a borg, you should try to LAWyer it first. Thats half the fun imo. If the player wants to break some of the more clear cut rules then, as the rule list suggests, they should F1 it first.

It wasn't ignored, just posted in a separate area. Sorry for not transferring it.

[feem]

Well then this means that the process isn't working as intended, if admins still need to rely on overwhelming proof to identify troublesome (or, in school jargon, "resource-intensive") players who keep rule-lawyering and admin-shopping and toe-lining around their notes.

I tried for about five minutes to come up with a way to illustrate how stupid this comment is without being a shithead to you but despite my very honest best efforts I feel like I have to resort to this:

> people are complaining to the admins that admins interfere too much without being given evidence or complaint
> people are complaining to the admins that admins ban people without cause or due to petty personal reasons
> people are complaining to the admins that admins write down too many things about what players have done
> people are complaining to the admins that admins rely on evidence before banning people

Oh my god what

[onleavedontatme]

Admin meeting would be worthless because we would never agree on anything

[Qbopper]

Admin meeting would be worthless because we would never agree on anything

i think people are proposing admin meetings as a solution to the "admins never agree" thing

they're unrealistic for other reasons though

[Bawhoppennn]

How is this so complicated?
If someone has a problem, they ahelp. If they don't, then they don't ahelp and everyone is happy.

I don't really get the issue.

[captain sawrge]

How is this so complicated?
If someone has a problem, they ahelp. If they don't, then they don't ahelp and everyone is happy.

I don't really get the issue.

Read the whole thread before replying to it

[Bawhoppennn]

I did actually

[captain sawrge]

I did actually

Then think more than 4 seconds before writing a contentless post that completely ignores every other point brought up in the thread.

[Bawhoppennn]

Basically all other points in the thread can be solved by what I said though.
Only 2 exceptions are people being too timid to ahelp (which I explicitly mentioned that I didn't think were a real concern),
and people waiting to the round to ahelp to check if they're antag (which we've tried to train people to not do)

So please explain to me what the issue is?

[Bawhoppennn]

To further elaborate, a player's actions should only matter if someone is actually aggrieved by them. Otherwise what's the point in pursuing any case against them?

[captain sawrge]

Counter-counter point some people hold off on ahelping because they believe their aggressor to be an antag in the face of obvious antag-like behavior or otherwise behavior so blatantly against the rules that surely there must be an OOC reason for it
Admins can actually see the information players can't and can step in to intervene when a player just acts like a shithead and then outright admits to breaking the rules

[feem]

dude boh bombs, nobody ahelps it because they think it was an antag because that person's been acting shitty all round, come to find out it wasn't

oh well! nobody ahelped so it's ok right

(Before you say 'that'll never happen,' _it has happened_)

[Bawhoppennn]

It's still a massive stretch.
If someone is being a shitter and murderboning or singulo bombing as a nonantag, and everyone is observing them, it's pretty likely atleast SOMEONE will ahelp, and even if they don't, so what if it takes until the end of the round to go and ban them? If there's a real problem, it's super blatant what was going on and won't exactly delay the round end to deal with them quickly.
It's not like "Oh I accidentally BoH bombed" and people thought it was an intentional attack or something.

[captain sawrge]

It's still a massive stretch.
If someone is being a shitter and murderboning or singulo bombing as a nonantag, and everyone is observing them, it's pretty likely atleast SOMEONE will ahelp, and even if they don't, so what if it takes until the end of the round to go and ban them? If there's a real problem, it's super blatant what was going on and won't exactly delay the round end to deal with them quickly.
It's not like "Oh I accidentally BoH bombed" and people thought it was an intentional attack or something.

Non-admin: this thing all these admins are describing never happens

[captain sawrge]

It isn't even uncommon to get like 3-4 ahelps from people at round end during high pop because they held off ahelping til they could observe the guy or see the roundend antag list. You don't know what you're talking about at all.

[Bawhoppennn]

Even if it happens more than I expect, it shouldn't actually matter considering what I already explained.
You'll need to bring up some other issue if you want to make any further points about it.

[captain sawrge]

Even if it happens more than I expect, it shouldn't actually matter considering what I already explained.
You'll need to bring up some other issue if you want to make any further points about it.

Very rarely in this game are issues completely black and white, and when they are, it's not immediately apparent. Players on either side expect us to fairly investigate matters before applying punishment. Trying to do so in the 60 seconds you have between the antag list and the server restart is difficult, stressful, and generally not feasible. Delaying the round is annoying and detrimental to the 60 or so players on especially if the investigation takes a bit of log diving and questioning. Trying to drag the investigation into the next round makes things way more tedious because then you no longer have easy access to relevant information.

[Bawhoppennn]

What I meant, is that we already try to train people to ahelp right away if it's something obvious.
We can easily make this more clear of a thing you should do (maybe even add a rule that ahelps after the round end won't be accepted if we wanted to go extreme about it). In addition to that, we've also tried to instill a mentality that you should just let things go sometimes. I can't sure how much that follows through to reality, but I believe it certainly contributes to reducing it some atleast.
Also more importantly, people actually have to care and have the energy to actually ahelp, which they're not going to over something small that they won't remember tomorrow.
That means only things that more blatant and pressing will actually get through.

[Bawhoppennn]

Overall, I think admins interjecting themselves into player situations they don't really have any place in ruins the sanctity of the game itself, and should be kept to an absolute minimum. People who wait until the end of the round to ahelp should be the ones encouraged to not do so, rather than admins jumping in and preemptively dealing with people in the round.

[captain sawrge]

*doesnt read either of your posts* lol

[Qbopper]

People who wait until the end of the round to ahelp should be the ones encouraged to not do so, rather than admins jumping in and preemptively dealing with people in the round.

what is this even saying

i'm reading this as "people should be told not to ahelp at round end, and admins shouldn't deal with situations mid round"

so, what, admins should never do anything?

[Lazengann]

Yeah nah if the dude is clearly an antag(in my view) I ain't bothering to adminhelp
Sometimes you die and that is the game

[Cobby]

The current Idea though is to simply ignore it if it created an interesting situation, at least that's what I'm getting from the current headmins. Nearly every rule break by that point then could be simply ignored under the idea that an interesting situation became of it.

Even if someone is fucked over by it like in the rage cage it caused someone to hit crit nigh-instantly, then it should be ignored because it's cool. What's to say a BoH bomb by a nonantag creates a cool situation between 2 people while hecking over everyone else? It's very subjective to the point where I feel like any enforcement of IC incidences is unfair because we have let people do objectively worse things.

I wish I was just being a shitler about the topic but this really boils down to headmins should just say "If it doesn't break the fourth wall like metacomms, OOC/IC, hacking, etc. then don't bother" since that's more/less how they want us to run currently which is evident by the many recent note/ban appeals that "should be IC issues" despite being more and more evident rulebreak.

I mean in some way I feel like admins are getting thrown under the bus a bit because instead of us being able to say "headmins have decided X" and have the responsibility of the enforcement under the headmin with admins simply following their requests, we get the bulk of the responsibility then catch flak for it because it's not in their vision. We wouldn't have pages upon pages of "is this bannable" and people getting note/infracted as much if headmins took the time to write out what they want us to focus/be hands off on instead of making us look like #literallyhitlers in each consecutive "welllllllll I don't think admins should have involved themselves" appeal with seemingly more and more apparent rulebreaking.

[Lazengann]

Cobby you're doing the "oh he built a rage cage so I can boh bomb??" thing people do to admins but you're the admin

[cedarbridge]

Cobby you're doing the "oh he built a rage cage so I can boh bomb??" thing people do to admins but you're the admin

And now you see the fresh hell from the outside in.

[Cobby]

Cobby you're doing the "oh he built a rage cage so I can boh bomb??" thing people do to admins but you're the admin

Are they wrong in doing so if the only metric is seemingly "is this cool/interesting"? Perhaps I should have mentioned they were Asimov?

[captain sawrge]

Concern yourself less with the letter of the law and more with the spirit of the actions.

[Cobby]

The spirit = have fun

Gouty did not have fun and he was critted because of a explicitly-defined rule (asimov borg not following asimov as he should) being broken.

"b-b-b-but the spirit!!!!"????

Again, getting mad at admins for not following your mental line when you haven't remotely defined your line is stupid.

[captain sawrge]

Gouty was healed and on his feet within a matter of minutes and it was his own actions that indirectly lead him to the situation he ended up in.

[oranges]

Gouty was a third party who was caught by the actions of someone else.

You're applying an intent to the borg that never existed to murder people.

All you had to do was pull gouty with admin get and revive them, and the balance is restored.

[Cobby]

He was pushed in.

So your line is if they damage was repaired shortly after then we can look at "was this cool/fun/unique/yadda yadda"?

Gouty was a third party who was caught by the actions of someone else.

You're applying an intent to the borg that never existed to murder people.

All you had to do was pull gouty with admin get and revive them, and the balance is restored.

But he did, that's the whole point of why he chose emitters overs walls/grilles/etc.

Now he may have not meant to harm HUMANS, but it's his responsibility as asimov to put safeguards on the structure before making it dangerous to ensure humans are not harmed. If there was say glass windows like how he did it in the past that got broken and gouty then fell in, It would be perfectly ok because it was beyond his control.

This isn't a new concept, and in fact it's pretty explicitly defined under silicon laws. Since rule 0 is being used to say nothing should have came of it, I'd like to understand why in a way that addresses the points other admins have made that isn't "SPIRIT OF THE RULE" when it's pretty explicit with little room for interpretation.

I want to reiterate this is coming from an admin who is well known ingame for heavily IC issuing subjects and have been willing to explain to people why I ruled in this way if they asked (just this week I had to explain to someone why I was not going to act on player X asking player Y in OOC preround to roll jobs together). I have genuinely good intentions about discussing this and the whole reason i'm discussing this is so I and other admins can sort of piece out where the current headmins want to draw the lines in the sand because on my end it doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason.

[captain sawrge]

I tried real hard to explain in IRC and you ignored it, made assumptions, and then when I gave up you got all cocky and sarcastic about it.

Now you're trying to make a big fuss in an unrelated public discussion while claiming "good intentions."

Get in contact with the headmins for clarification, make a thread in the headmin forum, and stop trying to declare anarchy because you disagree with the ruling.

[Cobby]

I tried real hard to explain in IRC and you ignored it, made assumptions, and then when I gave up you got all cocky and sarcastic about it.

Now you're trying to make a big fuss in an unrelated public discussion while claiming "good intentions."

Get in contact with the headmins for clarification, make a thread in the headmin forum, and stop trying to declare anarchy because you disagree with the ruling.

Disagreement != Ignoring, and I had to leave during the discussion so I apologize if you took my absence as "cocky and sarcastic". I remember saying that note policy should explicitly allow for non-error note appeals and headmins should change it if they are going to allow players to do such if that's what you're on about, which I genuinely think should occur and in no way am being sarcastic about.

It's not unrelated, this thread is about drawing the OOC/IC issue line and that appeal was literally "welllll admins should not have made it as much of an OOC issue as it was laid out to be". I'm not even the one who initially referenced it, it was Wz I believe.

This should also be public so players can also see where headmins stand on the issue. This condescending attitude because I'm asking for something tangible that also considers the other side's grievances is absurd and claiming that i'm trying to declare anarchy over it when the only remotely close thing I've said is that "it almost comes off as (we) are getting thrown under the bus" is crazy and disappointing. Being one of the top 5 most active administrators on the team and Gouty being another (in the last 30 days at least), I think it's in good conscience to ask what headmins expect since we both view the situation completely opposite and yet we're some of the ones that players are going to have the most run ins with. Having players see the headmins' responses as well and know how they are also expected to act instead of letting them piece it out via trial by fire is also in good conscience. How is any of that literally anarchy, or is this just your personal take on how you view the "spirit" of anarchy?

[Lazengann]

So basically the "You can't appeal notes just because you don't think the action was noteworthy" rule conflicts with the recent ruling and should be updated to reflect current policy

[captain sawrge]

This should also be public so players can also see where headmins stand on the issue. This condescending attitude because I'm asking for something tangible that also considers the other side's grievances is absurd and claiming that i'm trying to declare anarchy over it when the only remotely close thing I've said is that "it almost comes off as (we) are getting thrown under the bus" is crazy and disappointing. Being one of the top 5 most active administrators on the team and Gouty being another (in the last 30 days at least), I think it's in good conscience to ask what headmins expect since we both view the situation completely opposite and yet we're some of the ones that players are going to have the most run ins with. Having players see the headmins' responses as well and know how they are also expected to act instead of letting them piece it out via trial by fire is also in good conscience. How is any of that literally anarchy, or is this just your personal take on how you view the "spirit" of anarchy?

Even if someone is fucked over by it like in the rage cage it caused someone to hit crit nigh-instantly, then it should be ignored because it's cool. What's to say a BoH bomb by a nonantag creates a cool situation between 2 people while hecking over everyone else? It's very subjective to the point where I feel like any enforcement of IC incidences is unfair because we have let people do objectively worse things.

this really boils down to headmins should just say "If it doesn't break the fourth wall like metacomms, OOC/IC, hacking, etc. then don't bother" since that's more/less how they want us to run currently which is evident by the many recent note/ban appeals that "should be IC issues" despite being more and more evident rulebreak.

making us look like #literallyhitlers in each consecutive "welllllllll I don't think admins should have involved themselves" appeal with seemingly more and more apparent rulebreaking.

So your line is if they damage was repaired shortly after then we can look at "was this cool/fun/unique/yadda yadda"?

cmon

[captain sawrge]

[I apologize if you took my absence as "cocky and sarcastic".

atlanta_ned I think the note was fine the way it is 15:29
ExcessiveUseOfCobby I do too 15:29
ExcessiveUseOfCobby but WAAAHHHHHH 15:29

Please don't use scare quotes when you literally posted this after the whole discussion.

[Cobby]

[I apologize if you took my absence as "cocky and sarcastic".

atlanta_ned I think the note was fine the way it is 15:29
ExcessiveUseOfCobby I do too 15:29
ExcessiveUseOfCobby but WAAAHHHHHH 15:29

Please don't use scare quotes when you literally posted this after the whole discussion.

That wasn't to you? That was to the people who wanted a note rewrite because the current note was fine as is.

Even if someone is fucked over by it like in the rage cage it caused someone to hit crit nigh-instantly, then it should be ignored because it's cool. What's to say a BoH bomb by a nonantag creates a cool situation between 2 people while hecking over everyone else? It's very subjective to the point where I feel like any enforcement of IC incidences is unfair because we have let people do objectively worse things.

this really boils down to headmins should just say "If it doesn't break the fourth wall like metacomms, OOC/IC, hacking, etc. then don't bother" since that's more/less how they want us to run currently which is evident by the many recent note/ban appeals that "should be IC issues" despite being more and more evident rulebreak.

making us look like #literallyhitlers in each consecutive "welllllllll I don't think admins should have involved themselves" appeal with seemingly more and more apparent rulebreaking.

So your line is if they damage was repaired shortly after then we can look at "was this cool/fun/unique/yadda yadda"?

cmon

> spirit of rule meme
> supposedly spirit of rule is you can ignore if being cool even though the rule is cut-and-dry.
> what's not to say x,y,z aren't cool when you're only giving an extremely subjective method?
> wow now you're just being sarcastic and cocky
> So the line is actually a,b,c? I want to know so I and others don't make the same mistake.
> dude just stop lol

fuck off sawrge.

So basically the "You can't appeal notes just because you don't think the action was noteworthy" rule conflicts with the recent ruling and should be updated to reflect current policy

Yes. I'm trying to argue the note is ok on it's own while also trying to argue the above so it's a mess.

[onleavedontatme]

It's funny that admins (rightfully) realize its very annoying and even increase ban lengths when players pull the "well I guess I can kill people randomly forever now thanks" in ahelps but every single forum discussion about the rules involving admins degrades into "well if noting for non malicious mistakes that didnt even remove a player from the round is wrong I guess people can just create black holes to wipe out the entire map and server and we can't ban them"

All three headmins have told you our "vision" in recent appeals, but you've more or less called the vision trash and argued for days on every available platform about it and in multiple appeals you weren't even involved in.

Also

>telling an admin they (non maliciously) got the rules wrong, undoing their action, and moving on is throwing them under the bus because saying they got the rules wrong creates the perception they are hitler
>telling a player they got the rules wrong and giving them a permanent black mark means the player is insane if they care about it because those records of getting the rules don't create any perception at all

[onleavedontatme]

You can't appeal notes just because you don't think the action was noteworthy

I don't know who made this rule or when but it is not valid anymore

[Slignerd]

Cobby, I think theming yourself after J_Madison might've been a bad influence on you.

[Cobby]

You can't appeal notes just because you don't think the action was noteworthy

I don't know who made this rule or when but it is not valid anymore

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2747

Feel free to amend/clarify/etc. within the thread.

Cobby, I think theming yourself after J_Madison might've been a bad influence on you.

I only did the inverted picture because I think it's funny, someone else changed my name.

As for

All three headmins have told you our "vision" in recent appeals, but you've more or less called the vision trash and argued for days on every available platform about it and in multiple appeals you weren't even involved in.

I have only argued in these threads because I would have responded in the same manner and despite asking in these appeals where is the line drawn as I've mentioned here, the only tangible one is

If the borg made the contraption in the bar backroom on meta that's sufficient consideration for asimov laws when making a dangerous autism project. Same deal with electrified rage cages in the box bar. Yes it's dangerous if someone walks into it but it's separate enough from major public passage ways where you could reasonably say the intent was to make something to specifically cause harm or griff instead of be a project. Bars are also traditionally common places for autism projects to take place anyway, they're usually empty spaces that still see enough traffic to make building it lively.

Which, while I don't fully agree with it, can take into consideration in the future and tangibly use in hopes to avoid another mishap. I cannot take "uhhh let's move on now resolved!" when I ask

So again I ask is harmbatonning and general shitlery as sec ok now if you can word a situation as if you been inconvenienced? can I send people to red anytime they remotely I nconvenience me doing my job, even if they're just doing their job as well? Will these too be IC issues and if not then what mitigating factors besides the fleeting notion of Admins wanting people to handle everything, including stupid situations as these, should admins and players be aware of relative to this situation?

It's clear we do not think alike, so I guess all i'm asking is you take the time to explain to me/admins who think like me the reasoning in a bit more detail and perhaps consider our side as well instead of defaulting to us being "wrong". If we're not getting it, perhaps try to piece it together differently. Sorry if it came off as abrasive.

[bandit]

The thing is, this is an edge case. The majority of garden variety griff admins face is just not that interesting. Like, to take the opposite edge case, I would hope banning, say, some pubbie who logs on, drive-by wordlessly welderbombs shit or starts randomly toolboxing people to death FNR would be fine, ahelped or not. It's perhaps "interesting" in the sense that your getting shot on your way home from school would be interesting, but it is not something you'd want to encourage, and it's banal.

[Cobby]

The thing is, this is an edge case. The majority of garden variety griff admins face is just not that interesting. Like, to take the opposite edge case, I would hope banning, say, some pubbie who logs on, drive-by wordlessly welderbombs shit or starts randomly toolboxing people to death FNR would be fine, ahelped or not. It's perhaps "interesting" in the sense that your getting shot on your way home from school would be interesting, but it is not something you'd want to encourage, and it's banal.

I agree, and I'm probably making a huge fuss over nothing, but it seems like we keep having these "edge case" issues pop up recently.

[Bawhoppennn]

People who wait until the end of the round to ahelp should be the ones encouraged to not do so, rather than admins jumping in and preemptively dealing with people in the round.

what is this even saying

i'm reading this as "people should be told not to ahelp at round end, and admins shouldn't deal with situations mid round"

so, what, admins should never do anything?

What I meant is basically that, 1: People consent by default, 2: People shouldn't wait until the END of the round if they do have a problem.

I personally think use of admins should be absolutely minimized, and people should be more willing to go the rule 10 route and just let things go. Only the most grievous problems should actually incur any administrative fury.