/tg/Station 13

Less bwoinking, more "IC issue"
We should empower players to make memorable stories. This can't happen if they are too afraid of being bwoinked to do anything fun. Enforcement must be broadly loosened up.

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:50 am No deviations allowed. All must know the meta. All must power the game.

I will make it legal to not know the meta and to not power the game.

Listening to the community
Wherever policy discussion is concerned, I intend to base my vote on the opinions and visions expressed by the players themselves, prioritising keeping the game fun for its players.

Protecting players from overreach
Some of you may already be familiar with my vision for the appeals process. I hold that players should be entitled to some core protections inspired by Roman Law. Here's one example:
Back when Kieth4 got noted for suboptimal gameplay, I asked:

ekaterina wrote: ↑ Are we going to need a headmin precedent for "you can't note people who didn't actually break any rules"?

Recent events on the station show that the answer is yes, and it is my mission to provide it. I will vote to overturn bans and notes not clearly and articulably based on the rules.

Encouraging opinion diversity
Only a handful of brave goodmins currently voice their opinions freely when they disagree with other admins. Thus, in seeking an end to the toxic environment of admins covering for each other no matter how insane a ruling may be, I will encourage following in said goodmins' example.

Mentors
I believe a mentor system would be beneficial for our community. The ahelp button is scary, a mentorhelp button is not. Admins shouldn't be scary and should be closer to the community, but it is also not the reality we have right now. A mentor system would also allow us to leverage the experience of players who have no interest in being admins and enforcing policy but want to help other players with questions about mechanics.

Appeals by toolbox
Each player who has received a temporary ban shall be able to demand a trial by combat and 1v1 the banning admin (or me in the admin's stead, should the latter chicken out), up to once a year, to commute his sentence.

Regular events
I will encourage admins and empower players to host more events. From simple things like Nations and Raging Mages once a month, to more unique and creative things yet to be conceived of!

Some of what I want to do will, naturally, depend on getting the support of at least one of the other two headmins, but I intend to do my part to ensure Kieth's project lives on, with my own additions and twists.
I am passionate about this game, and, together with my sponsors in Big Greytide™ and Big Threat™, and you, the community, I look forward to turning my project into a reality.

I leave you with a picture me and Kieth4, ready to adventure into spess:

Hey ekat! When it comes to listening to the community, do you mean the people on the forums, discord, game or all three? How will you go about it? When it comes to spirit vs wording of a ruling how do you stand? Is the former or latter more important?

TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2024 2:47 pm Hey ekat! When it comes to listening to the community, do you mean the people on the forums, discord, game or all three? How will you go about it? When it comes to spirit vs wording of a ruling how do you stand? Is the former or latter more important?

Thank you for the thoughtful questions!

In regards to listening to the community's opinions on proposals, while I think it is useful to listen to all three spaces, the game itself should be the primary source, through polls, for example. Many of our gamers just want to login and have fun without worrying about the forums or Discord, and their opinions shouldn't matter any less because of that. We need feedback from the people who actually play, regardless of whether they use other tgstation spaces. When it comes to new ideas, however, places such as the policy discussion subforum can be incredibly useful.

Onto your other question, this one gave me a lot to think about. I lean towards the wording, but I don't think the rule's intention is irrelevant. I don't think it is fair to punish players for conduct that strictly adheres to the wording of a rule, even if it goes against the original intention. At the same time, a player who may have gone against the wording but adhered to the rules' spirit should be granted leniency. I hold that it is up to the policy's author to make it clear and precise, not up to players to read the minds of whoever wrote any given policy and gauge its spirit. We all come from different backgrounds and may interpret ambiguous things differently. If its wording is not conveying the message it's supposed to with clarity, then it needs to be reworded.

I can see the torch going. unlike all the other headmin before they make their rulings and never really speak about such till the grey area situation happens.
I know you well, I do enjoy your consistency. Will you guide folks to update more of the past rulings and clarify more of the english terms that get taken granted?

Also, to point out that you take breaks and your viewpoint has always been in the other persons shoes in almost all cases, which isn't a bad thing. This creates conversations, some good, some alright, some are just peanuts.

Appeal by toolbox is the strongest one, I would add a "choose your champion with low ping" to it

iansdoor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2024 9:18 pm I can see the torch going. unlike all the other headmin before they make their rulings and never really speak about such till the grey area situation happens.
I know you well, I do enjoy your consistency. Will you guide folks to update more of the past rulings and clarify more of the english terms that get taken granted?

Also, to point out that you take breaks and your viewpoint has always been in the other persons shoes in almost all cases, which isn't a bad thing. This creates conversations, some good, some alright, some are just peanuts.

Thank you for your kind words!

The answer to your question is yes. Old rulings that, through their lack of clarity or lack of specificity, cause problems in enforcement or in appeals should be updated with clearer wording, with the input of the original author, if possible. Rulings that have been rendered obsolete or incomplete as the game gets updated should also be revisited.

antropod wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2024 5:35 am Appeal by toolbox is the strongest one, I would add a "choose your champion with low ping" to it

I'm open to this! Before the actual implementation of toolbox appeals, it would certainly have to be expanded on with clearer rules, like who selects the type of duel, when champions are allowed and with what limitations, how many rounds the fight should have, whether there should be a timer and how long it should be, and so on. I think these details are best discussed after the headmin team is formed, and that it wouldn't be advantageous to focus too much on the details right now.

TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 19, 2024 2:47 pm How will you go about it?

I'd also like to add that I started gathering player opinions long before the campaign season opened, while I was still thinking about running and preparing my campaign: viewtopic.php?f=83&t=36340
The concerns expressed by players in this thread helped shape some of the central tenets of my campaign, especially seeing that MRP players' concerns (at least those within the purview of a headmin) are quite similar to those of LRP players.

I have been endorsed by the first player headmin

kieth4 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 9:03 amEkat sweep

Vote for Ekaterina!

in short terms, everything i read makes sense and i agree with, specially favouritism and the mentors part, coming from a player who once had a perma ban for "false report" after getting their brains fried and eaten by a non antag for having hot air in a can, you have my vote

we need more serious admins and less "Serious..." Admins you know what i mean?

You talk about goodmins a bit in your thread, what is a goodmin to you? What makes an admin a goodmin?

RobloxDown2023 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 12:00 pm in short terms, everything i read makes sense and i agree with, specially favouritism and the mentors part, coming from a player who once had a perma ban for "false report" after getting their brains fried and eaten by a non antag for having hot air in a can, you have my vote

we need more serious admins and less "Serious..." Admins you know what i mean?

Thank you for your support! I know what you mean.

TheRex9001 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 12:17 pm You talk about goodmins a bit in your thread, what is a goodmin to you? What makes an admin a goodmin?

To me, there are several things to what makes a goodmin:

First, being in it for the right reason, which is to make the community a better place; not for status, not to power trip, not to "put players in their place" because they have a legitimate playstyle the admin personally doesn't like.

Second, critical thinking and not caving to pressure. Analysing whether a ruling has merit based on logic and the facts of the case, not how many admins agree with it.

Third, not being afraid of publicly disagreeing with other admins when they make bad calls. Players must see rulings be scrutinised, and that admins are accountable, not a curtain of covering for fellow admins "just because".

Last but not least, they must, of course, be competent admins. They must know when to be lenient, go into an investigation with an open mind, not create a toxic space in ahelps, and so on.

Honestly a lot of your thread speaks from having no experiential knowledge of the inner workings of the administration and it shows, if you were to be successful it would probably be better to purge any pre-conceived notions and enter with a more open mind, "loosening" enforcement that is already lax is just going to lead to NRP griefer station and won't really fly either, another solution to knowing if you can do something is to ask beforehand. Loosening the rules will only lead to more frustration with players not being able to get recourse through admins or in game means against people more robust than them when they're doing annoying shit that is "funny"

GamerAndYeahMick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 6:23 pm Honestly a lot of your thread speaks from having no experiential knowledge of the inner workings of the administration and it shows

This comes across as nothing more than a cheap attack based on me not having a colourful name.

GamerAndYeahMick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 6:23 pm if you were to be successful it would probably be better to purge any pre-conceived notions

I am not going to throw my experiences and those of other players in the bin. They matter.

GamerAndYeahMick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 6:23 pm and enter with a more open mind

I agree with the general sentiment you are expressing here that, upon election, I should conduct an open-minded evaluation of the source and scope of the problems I've identified before taking action.

GamerAndYeahMick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 6:23 pm "loosening" enforcement that is already lax is just going to lead to NRP griefer station and won't really fly either, another solution to knowing if you can do something is to ask beforehand. Loosening the rules will only lead to more frustration with players not being able to get recourse through admins or in game means against people more robust than them when they're doing annoying shit that is "funny"

It is not my intention to "loosen the rules". Their overzealous enforcement is the problem. Players are so afraid of being bwoinked that they avoid doing fun, unique things because they don't want to explain themselves to admins. Everyone's always playing it safe, and that gets boring. It's better to have players accept that they are going to lose the game sometimes than to have every round be a repeat of the last, because only the meta is safe from the bwoink.

ekaterina wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 11:31 pm

GamerAndYeahMick wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 6:23 pm "loosening" enforcement that is already lax is just going to lead to NRP griefer station and won't really fly either, another solution to knowing if you can do something is to ask beforehand. Loosening the rules will only lead to more frustration with players not being able to get recourse through admins or in game means against people more robust than them when they're doing annoying shit that is "funny"

It is not my intention to "loosen the rules". Their overzealous enforcement is the problem. Players are so afraid of being bwoinked that they avoid doing fun, unique things because they don't want to explain themselves to admins. Everyone's always playing it safe, and that gets boring. It's better to have players accept that they are going to lose the game sometimes than to have every round be a repeat of the last, because only the meta is safe from the bwoink.

Your proposal for this is adding more rules, more legalese and "Protecting players from overreach". How does this change the situation?
Players being afraid of doing stuff because they don't want to explain themselves to admins is a psychology problem not an administration problem. In fact, adding these protections might even worsen the situation as players could feel they need to know the rules like the back of their palm and to know which protections from admins to plead before doing anything risky. By doing this are you not increasing the bar of entry for people?

The problem is players don't want to be bwoinked; giving them more legalese they can wield mid-bwoink won't better the situation.
In fact, under a system like this why would anyone do a gimmick without first sitting down to figure out their anti-admin protections? If I want to do an engineering gimmick, for example, I'd sit down before entering the game, look up my player protections, check what protections I have and write down somewhere. That way when an admin bwoinks me for any reason I can just copy and paste "Protection A3 - I Can Do My Job Worse, Protection J7 - I Didn't Harm Anyone, Protection G2 - It was Funny, Protection H4 - No Rules Were Broken" and be scott free.

IE - we are adding homework for gimmicks and adding even more anxiety. Now if someone finds an oportunity to do a gimmick or roleplay mid-round they are less likely to do so as they have not checked their admin protections for that before the round and might get scared of being bwoinked and caught with their pants down. Think of it this way - the problem is players are scared of being bwoinked. Rather than proposing methods to calm the players and tell them that there's nothing to fear you instead opted to give them a gun and tell them that there is something to be feared and that they should be scared of big bad admins. That's escalating the situation, feeding the fear and paranoia of bad bwoinks rather than promoting a more casual enviroment.

EuSouAFazenda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:02 pm Your proposal for this is adding more rules, more legalese and "Protecting players from overreach". How does this change the situation?

Even though you misunderstood my positions, I thank you for your questions and the opportunity to elaborate.

EuSouAFazenda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:02 pm Players being afraid of doing stuff because they don't want to explain themselves to admins is a psychology problem not an administration problem.

The "psychology problem" has not materialised out of the void. It's the result of players' experience at the hands of admins. Their interactions with admins shape their psychology around this. It is absolutely, at the source, an administration problem.

EuSouAFazenda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:02 pm The problem is players don't want to be bwoinked; giving them more legalese they can wield mid-bwoink won't better the situation.
In fact, under a system like this why would anyone do a gimmick without first sitting down to figure out their anti-admin protections? If I want to do an engineering gimmick, for example, I'd sit down before entering the game, look up my player protections, check what protections I have and write down somewhere. That way when an admin bwoinks me for any reason I can just copy and paste "Protection A3 - I Can Do My Job Worse, Protection J7 - I Didn't Harm Anyone, Protection G2 - It was Funny, Protection H4 - No Rules Were Broken" and be scott free.

IE - we are adding homework for gimmicks and adding even more anxiety. Now if someone finds an oportunity to do a gimmick or roleplay mid-round they are less likely to do so as they have not checked their admin protections for that before the round and might get scared of being bwoinked and caught with their pants down.

The "legalese" is not intended to be wielded "mid-bwoink", it's meant to be wielded in appeals, and it's primarily intended to deter admins from making bad bans to begin with, knowing they'll be overturned. Players are supposed to know the core rules before they start playing on the server. Very specific rulings like your hypothetical protections A3, G2, so on, would be meant to guide admins not to bwoink players for things that shouldn't merit bwoinks. If players have to invoke it at all, that means the admin already messed up. I explore a related topic here: viewtopic.php?p=742197#p742197

Your idea that having more protections somehow worsens the situation for players is incomprehensible. Worst case scenario, it changes nothing. Best case scenario, it improves everything. The kind of player who'd look at the rules to find out whether something's allowed before doing it would currently not do it anyway, and the kind who wouldn't isn't going to start now. That player's just gonna do what he does, and he's gonna get bwoinked less.
It's also more reasonable to expect that they would ahelp "hey, is X allowed?", and, per above, the headmin rulings should guide what the admin does and doesn't allow. Since we're talking about permissive rulings, they clarify that things are allowed, not that only those things are allowed.

EuSouAFazenda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 1:02 pm Think of it this way - the problem is players are scared of being bwoinked. Rather than proposing methods to calm the players and tell them that there's nothing to fear you instead opted to give them a gun and tell them that there is something to be feared and that they should be scared of big bad admins. That's escalating the situation, feeding the fear and paranoia of bad bwoinks rather than promoting a more casual enviroment.

Why would I tell players there's nothing to fear when there is something to fear? Our appeals are all public, you can look for yourself. I disagree with your assessment of the situation. You don't fix a problem of overbearing admins by telling players they're wrong to be afraid, you do it by making it so they have nothing to fear.

I like your energy a lot, good to see you participating in elections!

Would you mind sharing an experience you've had as a leader that you're especially proud of? (An OOC/IRL one, preferably. Keep it as vague as you're comfortable with.)

What does "compromise" mean to you?

What experience do you have with administration/mediation? (In a broad sense, not exclusive to SS13)

RaveRadbury wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 6:35 pm I like your energy a lot, good to see you participating in elections!

Thank you

RaveRadbury wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 6:35 pm Would you mind sharing an experience you've had as a leader that you're especially proud of? (An OOC/IRL one, preferably. Keep it as vague as you're comfortable with.)

I prefer not to comment regarding IRL things, but I will gladly answer with an online experience!
It took place in a game not unlike Mount and Blade Warband: Napeoleonic Wars, where we had two teams of players facing off against each other, typically as disorganised masses, but, inside each team, you'd sometimes find organised bands. I was leading one such band, merely three, maybe four people. Our organisation made us so much more effective, and my leadership was seemingly so inspiring, that other players joined us to the point of doubling or tripling in size in a single session!

RaveRadbury wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 6:35 pm What does "compromise" mean to you?

Ideally, it means finding a sort of middle ground where both parties end up better off than they started, even if it means not being as well off as they could have been at the expense of the other.

RaveRadbury wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2024 6:35 pm What experience do you have with administration/mediation? (In a broad sense, not exclusive to SS13)

I have had the experience of being the head admin of a Discord server with members in the thousands, and of being a moderator for a forum not unlike this one.
Thank you for this question! Indeed, it might've been convenient to have mentioned that I have administrative experience earlier, just outside of SS13

This comes across as nothing more than a cheap attack based on me not having a colourful name.

If you feel attacked that's on you, and my name is blue like everyone else's, i'm telling you that you have an idea in your head without the full painting, it'd be wise to take that on board as things are not always as they seem, good luck with the election

My campaign™ has produced and distributed an official tier list and T-shirts