reopen ban requests

[kinnebian]

can we please re open ban requests?
i think it is needed!
thank you

[Vekter]

God no

[Itseasytosee2me]

can we please re open ban requests?
i think it is needed!
thank you

Tell me who you want gone and i'll pull on a few of the old red strings for you

[zergking]

Mr Vekter send this man to MSOs weed lair and have him blacklisted NOW

[TheBibleMelts]

can we please re open ban requests?
i think it is needed!
thank you

yes, under the condition that you are the one to investigate, address, ban for, and resolve the appeals of said bans yourself.

[kinnebian]

and if i say yes?

[ABearInTheWoods]

So I've often suggested the idea that ban requests should be open, but require the requester provide all of the evidence and rather or not a ban request goes thru a screening phase would be dependant on if the logs provided by the request prove the violation, without any investigative work.

If approved, than the only thing the admin has to do is quickly verify the logs aren't fake, and/or give the otherside a on connection message/notice to address the accusations.

[Vekter]

So I've often suggested the idea that ban requests should be open, but require the requester provide all of the evidence and rather or not a ban request goes thru a screening phase would be dependant on if the logs provided by the request prove the violation, without any investigative work.

If approved, than the only thing the admin has to do is quickly verify the logs aren't fake, and/or give the otherside a on connection message/notice to address the accusations.

I think I'd be okay with this. The only real issue with ban requests was that most of them amounted to "this person did a thing I don't like, ban them" and most of the time we'd find out they were either an antag or not breaking the rules.

If the player requesting the ban had to do all of the legwork to prove it was valid, I'd be a little more willing to say we could bring it back. My only issue is that I worry about a request being longer than a short novel and still requiring too much work to go through.

[Pandarsenic]

With the addition of public logs, I would initially say make it happen. Make the accuser provide full logs of the incident, broken into several codeblocks, with stuff like any interactions they had with the person before in the round of the accusation, then the incident(s) within that round, then any interactions they had after, etc.

But then it also occurred to me that it would be a pain to make sure that important lines could be tactically left out (like "missing" a succumb) and while I certainly expect most people wouldn't do it, the admins would still have to check every single time.

[TheBibleMelts]

-1 on this idea from both fikou and chesh. i'm not entirely opposed, but i also know the kinds of shitshows that the old ban request subforum offered and am ambivalent enough to not try to convince them otherwise.

i will say that discord help tickets can be used to this end for egregious cases of grief should you need some avenue to report somebody when there's no administrator active, though.

[Armhulen]

So I've often suggested the idea that ban requests should be open, but require the requester provide all of the evidence and rather or not a ban request goes thru a screening phase would be dependant on if the logs provided by the request prove the violation, without any investigative work.

If approved, than the only thing the admin has to do is quickly verify the logs aren't fake, and/or give the otherside a on connection message/notice to address the accusations.

I like the idea of this sane implementation is followed.

[Timberpoes]

If I were to bring ban requests back, it would be as Unanswered Ahelps.

If a player believes a rule was broken and ahelped it and the ahelp wasn't answered, they can come to the forums and request it be investigated. It's not perfect (end of round ahelps etc) but the goal should always be an ahelp first.

But keep in mind that right now players can still open ahelps for things in past shifts... Whilst our admin team generally doesn't like investigating them - even events from the last shift ahelped at the start of this shift.

I think this is because they tend to result in sub-quality investigations where the admin is unable to speak to all the appropriate parties and involve an order of magnitude more log diving when that's the case. Sub-quality investigations mean appeals.

[Justice12354]

So I've often suggested the idea that ban requests should be open, but require the requester provide all of the evidence and rather or not a ban request goes thru a screening phase would be dependant on if the logs provided by the request prove the violation, without any investigative work.

If approved, than the only thing the admin has to do is quickly verify the logs aren't fake, and/or give the otherside a on connection message/notice to address the accusations.

This kind of would require investigation in on itself regardless because someone can just give half of the story and only the logs that support their side. We'd have to check if the logs are factual and contain all the necessary information to come to a ruling, so that would be the same as investigating from scratch. So, in a way, the player providing logs is useless.

Can someone summarize what the actual issue with ban requests was?

[TheLoLSwat]

So I've often suggested the idea that ban requests should be open, but require the requester provide all of the evidence and rather or not a ban request goes thru a screening phase would be dependant on if the logs provided by the request prove the violation, without any investigative work.

If approved, than the only thing the admin has to do is quickly verify the logs aren't fake, and/or give the otherside a on connection message/notice to address the accusations.

This kind of would require investigation in on itself regardless because someone can just give half of the story and only the logs that support their side. We'd have to check if the logs are factual and contain all the necessary information to come to a ruling, so that would be the same as investigating from scratch. So, in a way, the player providing logs is useless.

Can someone summarize what the actual issue with ban requests was?

I think nobody wanted to do them but i could be wrong

[Archie700]

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6227&p=163079&hili ... st#p163079

[Constellado]

If I were to bring ban requests back, it would be as Unanswered Ahelps.

If a player believes a rule was broken and ahelped it and the ahelp wasn't answered, they can come to the forums and request it be investigated. It's not perfect (end of round ahelps etc) but the goal should always be an ahelp first.

But keep in mind that right now players can still open ahelps for things in past shifts... Whilst our admin team generally doesn't like investigating them - even events from the last shift ahelped at the start of this shift.

I think this is because they tend to result in sub-quality investigations where the admin is unable to speak to all the appropriate parties and involve an order of magnitude more log diving when that's the case. Sub-quality investigations mean appeals.

I like this, there are times when there are no admins online and I do an ahelp to have it never get answered. Would be nice to have something like this!

[Not-Dorsidarf]

If we bring back ban requests it is ABSOLUTELY vital that they are not publically visible until resolved imo. They are the king of drama factories.

[kinnebian]

If we bring back ban requests it is ABSOLUTELY vital that they are not publically visible until resolved imo. They are the king of drama factories.

that defeats the whole POINT

[dendydoom]

i personally am not a fan of applying what could be harsh, decisive punishments on people without being able to speak to them about what happened and get their side. log diving is necessary to obtain and analyze raw, hard facts, but there is more to curating a communal space than numbers and data.

my personal feeling is similar to what timber said. the longer we wait until after an incident to investigate it, the worse that investigation will be at resolving a situation fairly and equitably.

i don't think this would be the worst idea in the world, there is a discussion to be had about the lesser evil: risking weak investigations or just not investigating something at all, but i really would not like for players to assume that this should be the normal mode of operation to get issues resolved. the best time will always be as it's happening ingame via ahelps.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

If I were to bring ban requests back, it would be as Unanswered Ahelps.

If a player believes a rule was broken and ahelped it and the ahelp wasn't answered, they can come to the forums and request it be investigated. It's not perfect (end of round ahelps etc) but the goal should always be an ahelp first.

But keep in mind that right now players can still open ahelps for things in past shifts... Whilst our admin team generally doesn't like investigating them - even events from the last shift ahelped at the start of this shift.

I think this is because they tend to result in sub-quality investigations where the admin is unable to speak to all the appropriate parties and involve an order of magnitude more log diving when that's the case. Sub-quality investigations mean appeals.

The problem is, a lot of the time people want to wait until the end of the round to make sure someone wasn't an antagonist before they ahelp something, they don't want to waste the admin team's time.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Also sometimes people just cant believe that a nonantag would be doing something like bombing the shuttle with explosive lemons.

[Constellado]

Also sometimes people just cant believe that a nonantag would be doing something like bombing the shuttle with explosive lemons.

There is some grief that is so obviously antag activity I don't even ahelp because they are so obviously an antag and they dont need an ahelp. I then dont ahelp after the round because I don't even check the round end report half the time.

I dont like ahelping every single thing becuase it just adds more things to do in game and I am already busy in the game thank you.

Mind you, I think this ban requests thing will only really be useful in the case of no admins online imho.

[iain0]

The problem is, a lot of the time people want to wait until the end of the round to make sure someone wasn't an antagonist before they ahelp something, they don't want to waste the admin team's time.

Not explicitly aimed at you, but worth having written down somewhere since it comes up... The amount of "time wasted" ahelping an antag is several seconds, the time it takes to click logs and maybe check antags. The amount of time wasted (and time pressure) when something is ahelped at round end and we're delaying 60 people from playing the game because we have to delay reboot is unpleasant, and the chances are higher the other person logged off which creates a lot more log reading work since you can't just ask the person why something happened.

(I'll /usually/ ask the people to just hang on to the next round.... but sometimes I might want to play the next round too.)

Sorry if this is a little off topic for the original discussion, just a message I always think is important to convey.

[Screemonster]

If we bring back ban requests it is ABSOLUTELY vital that they are not publically visible until resolved imo. They are the king of drama factories.

the popcorn factor was the only thing good about ban requests and even that part was only good for the people who weren't involved

[TheLoLSwat]

The problem is, a lot of the time people want to wait until the end of the round to make sure someone wasn't an antagonist before they ahelp something, they don't want to waste the admin team's time.

Not explicitly aimed at you, but worth having written down somewhere since it comes up... The amount of "time wasted" ahelping an antag is several seconds, the time it takes to click logs and maybe check antags. The amount of time wasted (and time pressure) when something is ahelped at round end and we're delaying 60 people from playing the game because we have to delay reboot is unpleasant, and the chances are higher the other person logged off which creates a lot more log reading work since you can't just ask the person why something happened.

Ahelping isolated incidents doesn’t take too much time, but having to consider ahelping every situation sucks when you get on to play the game, so players don’t get in the habit of doing it

[conrad]

-1 on this idea from both fikou and chesh. i'm not entirely opposed, but i also know the kinds of shitshows that the old ban request subforum offered and am ambivalent enough to not try to convince them otherwise.

i will say that discord help tickets can be used to this end for egregious cases of grief should you need some avenue to report somebody when there's no administrator active, though.

If we bring back ban requests it is ABSOLUTELY vital that they are not publically visible until resolved imo. They are the king of drama factories.

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6227&p=163079&hili ... st#p163079

Thread should just really be closed at this point. The above just shows having a ban requests subforum is a waste of time and that there is no interest besides frothing at the mouth while you grab your groin area reading drama.

[RedBaronFlyer]

There must be one condition:

[Justice12354]

The problem is, a lot of the time people want to wait until the end of the round to make sure someone wasn't an antagonist before they ahelp something, they don't want to waste the admin team's time.

Not explicitly aimed at you, but worth having written down somewhere since it comes up... The amount of "time wasted" ahelping an antag is several seconds, the time it takes to click logs and maybe check antags. The amount of time wasted (and time pressure) when something is ahelped at round end and we're delaying 60 people from playing the game because we have to delay reboot is unpleasant, and the chances are higher the other person logged off which creates a lot more log reading work since you can't just ask the person why something happened.

Ahelping isolated incidents doesn’t take too much time, but having to consider ahelping every situation sucks when you get on to play the game, so players don’t get in the habit of doing it

I totally understand that. Ahelping is immersion-breaking and overall unpleasant.

Do keep in mind that, if you wait for the round-end report to ahelp something, it's absolutely weightless because, if the ahelped's an antag, you will not be forced to get in a back and forth ina helps, and you can go back to your game. However, if they are not, what iain listed is quite stressful for the admin handling it and annoying for the players stuck in EORG.

My point is that: if you ahelp an antag, you will quickly go back to ur game. If you ahelp a non-antag, it will be far more relaxed than during EORG or next round.

[Cheshify]

No, there isn't a good reason for this. We have ahelps and you can request a support ticket in the discord if there aren't any admins online/the round has ended. Making big public demands to ban people is not what we want to encourage.

Entire Headmin Team - No