[1 dismissal] Double sided courtesy policy for ahelps/tickets

[Kaed]

There is an expectation that players who have been bwoinked by admins to remain online until the conversation is over and the ticket has been closed.  I have been put on blast for logging out without being told things were clear, so I know this.

However, the ticket system that is implemented also means that if you are in the middle of typing something and the staff member with the ticket closes it, your message is blocked and is lost.  This is extremely frustrating for players whose ticket is picked up staff members who absently give you a ruling or opinion on something them shortly after close the ticket while you are typing a response, sometimes without you noticing because there is no particular sound that indicates a ticket has been closed, and it can get lost in a busy chat.  Especially if you are typing a long message and not looking at said chat window.

So, can we just like.. have a policy make sure the staff and player have both finished talking before the staff just shove a ticket in the finished pile?  It's not hard or unreasonable (I think?) to ask "Is that everything" or "anything else?" and get a 'yes' before closing the ticket.  If you want players to respect you as staff members, please extend a little respect to us too and don't make us waste our time by having to retype a message as an ahelp to get a new ticket opened.  I work in customer service, no one likes being hung up on in the middle of talking and having to dial back in, trust me.

[Pratepresidenten]

I am confused as to what you mean.

Are you saying that your ticket is being closed without any resolution or "Thanks for your input" and etcetera?

Or are do you want us to fish for more issues once we have resolved the initial ahelp? Why not just put all the issues in the first one?

[Kaed]

 

17 minutes ago, Pratepresidenten said:

I am confused as to what you mean.

Are you saying that your ticket is being closed without any resolution or "Thanks for your input" and etcetera?

Or are do you want us to fish for more issues once we have resolved the initial ahelp? Why not just put all the issues in the first one?

Problem in question:

Player: Hey, Bob Bobert ganked me

Staff: Looks like it was legit to me you were in a gunfight.
Player: Well, I- *ticket closed*

Solution:

Player: Bob Bobert ganked me

Staff: Looks like it was legit to me, you were in a gunfight. 
*long pause*

Staff: Was there something else?
Player; *finally finishes typing* Well I blah blah blah *long explanation about how Bob Bobert took out his gun first*
Staff: Okay, I'll look into that 
*things proceed as normal to resolution*
Player; Okay, thanks, I'm salty I was killed but I understand.

*ticket closed*

===

The problem is staff have gotten into the habit of answering ahelps about player reported issues and then closing them very quickly after, sometimes without really listening to what the reporting player has to say. It's understandable if they were just asking a question and you answered it, but when it's a report of player conduct it's a little rude to just close the ahelp immediately after giving your opinion on it.  It makes the staff member seem kind of dismissive.

[Pratepresidenten]

In my experience, most cases investigating issues, this hasnt really been an issue.

To put it from our side of view.

Staff: So this seems valid, you did X and Y.

Player: ----------------

*5-20 minutes pass*

*Close ticket*

Or another one where questions are asked in relation to the issue.

Player: So I did that and this.

Staff: Okay, thanks for your time/help/whatever

Player: ---------------------

*Close ticket*

 

This isnt just something staff does. Players do this too, and the amount of tickets we deal with, its seen more than plentiful. Sometimes I forget a ticket asking someone about something or thanking them for their time and they just dont say shit. Even when they ask about respawns or help, and it is offered, not even a thanks.

With the sometimes abundance of tickets answered during a round, and the frequent scenario where the player just doesnt bother responding to a resolution or what have you, we just close the ticket because the issue has been resolved/help has been given and there is no need to clog the window with open tickets.

I hope this offers some insight into things.

[Cnaym]

Staff: Hey I handled it ?

Player: Thank you

Staff forgetts to "Enjoy your round!" and leaves ticket open.

Player: Why am I not allowed to slime myself? How do I build maxcaps as officer? Is surgery really an issue as EMT?

Staff: Out of the round  for 15 minutes

I usually wait for the player to be like "Allright, thanks for looking into it" to which I give my "Enjoy your round!" and close the ticket. That has the reason that a new question about a different topic may come in and someone who knows more about that topic can take it. On the other hand I often close tickets about spawning stuff or giving respawns with a simple "Bless!" and that's it. Hope it's allright to do so, feedback from the community has been rare, so I think it's a good thing that you posted  Although there are not really rules about how we handle tickets, giving the other side time to respond or asking if there is anything else or simply wishing a good round are formalities that I'm a big fan of.

[Nantei]

Yeah I am not sure I understand the problem here. When there's an issue that requires investigation, you're pretty much never going to find a ticket lasting less than five minutes, because we'l have to talk to the other parties as well to see their reasoning. Usually if I am closing a ticket 'prematurely' it's because someone keeps trying to argue in a ticket long after I've made my ruling, so I tell them to make a complaint if they disagree with my ruling and close the ticket. Not going to say it doesn't happen, but I never see this.

Edited October 30, 2019 by Nantei

[sonicgotnuked]

I never really saw this either. The most that this may come down is, like other people have said, if the player is trying to argue after the ruling is placed down. Plus generally I put along the lines "I am going to close this ticket now" and that's the end of it.

[Flamingo]

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I also don't really see this issue myself. 

[ordinal]

-----

Edited January 14, 2020 by ordinal

[Lady Fowl]

3 hours ago, ordinal said:

Given that I've received a ban for literally and exactly this on Bay, I fully agree with OP. Staff should ALWAYS confirm with the person that they're speaking with that issues are resolved before tickets are closed. Not doing so should be a strike against the staff member retaining their position.

Staff don't have to disclose what action was taken to be honest, thats a breach of privicy and only inspires metagrudging/shitting on the player.

[ordinal]

-----

Edited January 14, 2020 by ordinal

[ShesTrying]

We don't have any obligation to publically shame our players. That's not how we do things.

 

[Alberyk]

6 minutes ago, ordinal said:

One, there's no obligation to provide privacy to people who have broken the rules.

It is better if we don't really, no one wants witchhunts or whatever. Same reason we have removed ckeys from antags and AI/borgs at the end of the round.

 

6 minutes ago, ordinal said:

Two, public naming and shaming works far better at preventing future problems especially when it's made public how the individual in question broke the rules and what specific rules they broke. This is how the judicial system works *in real life*.

No, it is not; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_camera

[ordinal]

-----

Edited January 14, 2020 by ordinal

[Sytic]

I do think just asking people if they're done, like anything else, is imo appropriate.

But literally all other details about the investigation done should be left closed and effectively an admin asking "u done" should be a closing statement. I've seen some Admins do this and some not, IMO it's really not a big deal, but just askin "ayy u done" would be a kind gesture.

[Skull132]

Can I just.

> Man claims real judicial system works by public naming and shaming.

> Alberyk, who's a recently graduated law student now, links real legal practice as evidence to the contrary.

> "I'm sorry not relevant".

Excuse me, wut.

Also, @ordinal, what you cite is the media blowing things up. Which is a practice that has lately gotten a lot of scrutiny, with the practice of not naming violent offenders in the media becoming more and more noteworthy:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/02/media/media-decisions-naming-showing-killers/index.html

https://www.livescience.com/60595-stop-naming-mass-shooters-say-scientists.html

(I found more links, but because I live in the EU, the US sites aren't too kind to me on being accessible.)

Also note that the public record is kept public for the sake of transparency. There's a trade-off between the personal privacy of the individual, and keeping the legal processes of the judicial system transparent. It is a matter that has little to do with "Naming and shaming" and more to do with keeping the judicial branch accountable before the public.

None of this is really applicable here, though. Because there is no social contract between us and our playerbase that comes even close to being equatable to the one that exists between a state, its judicial system, and its people. We're a private (semi-corporate) entity offering a service. We offer it on our terms and with respect to the local legal system.

Finally, again on the OP. Requiring a compulsory "Anything else?" feels like you're missing the forest for the trees. If the exchange was courteous and the admin solved the problem he was initially contacted about, is it really a bad deal if he closes the ticket to soon? Is it really that much of a bother to simply open another and go, "Woupsie, there's also this"? Requiring a script (effectively) for handling ahelps feels like way too much effort for something which is ultimately a non-issue, IMO, and can be solved with further communication (adminhelping again).

[Lady Fowl]

15 hours ago, ordinal said:

How does "is there anything else that needs my attention at the current moment" before preventing further communication disclosing anything privacy-related? One, there's no obligation to provide privacy to people who have broken the rules. Two, public naming and shaming works far better at preventing future problems especially when it's made public how the individual in question broke the rules and what specific rules they broke. This is how the judicial system works *in real life*.

There is obligation to protect there privacy to rule breakers, its called respecting that these are real people ooc with real feelings. 

[SatinsPristOTD]

15 hours ago, ordinal said:

Two, public naming and shaming works far better at preventing future problems especially when it's made public how the individual in question broke the rules and what specific rules they broke. This is how the judicial system works *in real life*.

.......... what? No it's not. No this isn't kosher.

I married into a family that has a murderer among it's ranks. The entire fucking family is shunned in the city it's from thanks to the media blowing it out of proportion. The court system NEVER did this.

What will happen is witch hunts, and anyone that associates with the witch will be burned at the stake as well. What good does it do for you to know I have a note about making one little LOOC meme in IC on the shuttle at round end? Nothing. It shouldn't effect how you view my current RP.

 

[ordinal]

I'm terribly tired of people misrepresenting me. I'll be deleting every post I've made on the forums and I'll be withdrawing to making the occasional bug report on Discord. Congrats.

[Scheveningen]

Should point out this thread was necrobumped.

Nobody was misrepresenting you, they were quoting the exact literal posts you made and responded in a literal fashion. You're responsible for your own words and the obvious implications thereof in formulating sentences or ideas upon this very forum. 

Kind of a drastic response to being called out as wrong, but okay. Bye.

 

[ben10083]

Well with whatever that was, I will get us back on track.

 

The system as it is is fine, if you get your ticket closed to early, just make another, what are the admins going to do, ban you for no raisen?

[Guest Menown]

On 15/01/2020 at 07:54, ben10083 said:

Well with whatever that was, I will get us back on track.

 

The system as it is is fine, if you get your ticket closed to early, just make another, what are the admins going to do, ban you for no raisen?

This is the way.

If a member of the staff refuses to allow me to even say thanks for handling my issue I'll just make another ahelp specifically for that. Nobody's going to go through the trouble of banning you or anything for expressing gratitude for handling your issue.

That said if you have another issue with something else, just make another ticket.

Yes, obviously the best practice would be going "is anything else needed?" but not everybody's going to do that, so it's just something we should work around.

[Juani2400]

This seems like non-issue, probably coming from isolated situations. When a ticket is closed without any answer is normally because:

1) We are bulk-closing a bunch of them. Normally we'll contact you if the ticket is relatively recent or there was a resolution pending (in the latter case, normally we just go by 'handled' or similar), otherwise it is pointless to ask if anything else is needed for a ticket that was taken 20 minutes ago.
2) You were not an involved party in a process, and just a witness. This sometimes happens when we are wrapping up a situation and we simply asked you what you saw, or whatever. Sometimes we'll just forget thank you for the help and just close the ticket together with the rest of the open tickets of the situation.
3) The most common one: we forget or don't notice. Normally we'll wait a bit or be clear that we are concluding the ticket ('thanks for your time','have a nice round') and wait for a response, but mods and admins are humans too and we are not always on the same mood, or always remember to do it. Sometimes we have limited time, as well, due to external circumstances.

If you feel you have something more to add, or want to express your gratitude, or whatever, you can always create a new ticket or just say 'thanks X' over OOC. We will not punish you for it unless you are just arguing for the sake for arguing after being told something was over. 

I do understand having to retype the whole thing is a pain, but unfortunately that's how the mechanic works. We try to remember to give enough time, but it is not always possible due to everything I said above. I'll be voting for the dismissal of this proposal, since it has no possible implementation from the policy side, and is also unneeded.

[Kaed]

This thread has been dead for months and I have no interest in pursuing it anymore, can someone kill it please before it gets necroposted again.