Less secrecy about admin actions, please

[Lady_of_Ravens]

I'm assuming the admins have a sound rationality for keeping their disciplinary actions secret... probably something to do with not making a fuss about it, or not publicly embarrassing the person being disciplined. Which makes a certain amount of sense, but I'm going to argue that this does more harm than good.

Why? Because while the rules as written are nice, they do little to tell a player how those rules are interpreted by our admins, and even less about how much those rules are actually enforced. So until and unless a player actually breaks the rules, gets reported, and is talked to by an admin, they won't ever know quite where the admins draw the line.

This has two consequences that I I see... first, players are denied the opportunity to learn from the mistakes/missteps of other players. If you don't mess up and get an admin talking to yourself, you're just not going to know where they draw the line. Gossip among players may mitigate this a little, but that's hardly a reliable way of distributing information.

Secondly, and just as important, the natural reaction to seeing someone do something questionable and having no visible action taken is to assume that no action was taken against them. So you either think "I can do that too" or "there's no point reporting that 'cause nothing will happen." Not exactly the response to rule-breaking we'd consider desirable.

The experience I base these conclusions on is simple: I've played somewhat regularly on Aurora for nearly a year and, while I've been ganked a few times and abused in questionable (albeit usually amusing) ways on rather more than a few occasions, outside of straight-up bald-style griefing, I'm aware of only two instances of people getting banned due to RP involving me. Both of those times were temp-bans, because it was the person who was banned who later told me, and both of those times were something of a shock. I really hadn't thought that they'd done anything wrong.

So, my suggestion is to, in some manner, publicize bans (and probably warnings too, for similar logic). Not in a big way, and not in a way that allows lots of loud and disruptive argument. Perhaps an admin announce at the end of the round listening any disciplinary actions and a word or two about each... enough that people know action was taken without making a big deal about it or adding a lot of admin overhead. It might make some people uncomfortable, but I think in the end we'd all be happier not groping around in the dark on this subject.

And who knows, people might even be a little less butthurt about stuff if they know that the people making trouble are being dealt with. No promises there, though...

[Frances]

I was gonna make a thread about this too.

Reading "it's been dealt with" on a player/admin complaint is... less than satisfying. And while you could argue satisfying the users isn't part of an admin's job, giving people the impression you're getting things done (along with actually doing them!) goes a long way towards keeping the community happy and involved.

Is anyone's "privacy" really being preserved in a special way when you tell others situations have been "handled", rather than clearly explaining what happened? Because I see two situations: either whatever issue there had has been settled civilly, in which case everyone will be glad to hear about the resolution, or the problematic user/min has been a raging cock, in which case I don't think anyone should care too much if their pride is being hurt alongside it.

PS: I've always really, really appreciated whenever an admin I've ahelped replies with a little "we talked to the user and it shouldn't happen again", or "we banned the user", along with a quick word of thanks. It's just a lot more encouraging to ahelp issues when there's actual follow-up and you feel like you've done something good, so it might be worthwhile to encourage staff to make that a habit.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I may be wrong but I am positive from what I have seen that it's nearly a universal thing that administration isn't completely transparent on servers.

But I do agree that it would be nice to get admins to have a little snippit saying what they did. "We talked with the player" etc etc.

[Frances]

I may be wrong but I am positive from what I have seen that it's nearly a universal thing that administration isn't completely transparent on servers.

Well, we don't need to do it just because everyone else does.

What would be interesting is to actually look at the incentives admins have to be more private or public, and see what makes the best course of action for everyone depending on the circumstances.

(Basically don't just look at what they do, look at why they do it - and find out if it's good.)

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

That's what I meant, you rampaging aardvark. If you can provide evidence that open administration provides a net gain for the community and administration, it would provide hard support for your argument. Currently, there are the very real critiques of the many abuses that a transparent administration would entail. We already have people using released information (player complaints) to try and tarnish the reputation of other players or whatever it is. What net gains would we get that could be better than the drawbacks?

[Jboy2000000]

People have said before, in OOC I remember, on the forums, that they won't make complaints or put them off because they feel that making complaints in useless, except to use up your time writing it, replying to one/two people, and then waiting days/weeks/months until an admins claims that its "resolved." So doing this would make people feel like complaints are less a waste of time, and more as something thats actually useful.

[Xelnagahunter]

I've spoken out against transparency before, and it was one of the questions I was asked about in my staff interview (to which it seems my answer was minorly unique). It breeds issues. It creates a community that will abuse a system because they know exactly how the top rated members will react and the like. I've seen much larger communities fall down because of an admin transparency issue, where admins started directly informing the public of changes to the server, policy, and staff team. I caused uproars because the community, while privy to the info, couldn't effect it. "You mean to tell me I don't get a vote on this doucheknocker being promoted to staff? I r4g3 0n u!" Things happening behind the scenes previously in that server's policy seperated staff from regular users by enough that they knew acting out would cause some sort of issue and they'd lose access to a community they enjoyed. It's not about control or power over the player, it's about making sure it doesn't become anymore self-destructive than it already might be.

Lady, I appreciate and understand the original argument but I can't, on a personal level, agree with it.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

I've spoken out against transparency before, and it was one of the questions I was asked about in my staff interview (to which it seems my answer was minorly unique). It breeds issues. It creates a community that will abuse a system because they know exactly how the top rated members will react and the like. I've seen much larger communities fall down because of an admin transparency issue, where admins started directly informing the public of changes to the server, policy, and staff team. I caused uproars because the community, while privy to the info, couldn't effect it. "You mean to tell me I don't get a vote on this doucheknocker being promoted to staff? I r4g3 0n u!" Things happening behind the scenes previously in that server's policy seperated staff from regular users by enough that they knew acting out would cause some sort of issue and they'd lose access to a community they enjoyed. It's not about control or power over the player, it's about making sure it doesn't become anymore self-destructive than it already might be.

Lady, I appreciate and understand the original argument but I can't, on a personal level, agree with it.

 

I'm about to run off to do RL stuff, but I thought I'd fire off a quick reply here first as I think you've misunderstood the nature of my request. I don't need the admins to let it all hang out, that'd be way overkill and, honestly, I don't really care about most admin business. I just want a little bit of information about disciplinary actions to be made public so that people can have a clearer idea of what is and isn't allowed, and that the admins are actually active in enforcing server rules.

[Killerhurtz]

It's a Damocles sword. Personally I'm against it.

You have to remember that people are panicky, manipulative fucks. A person is fine - but people are not fun.

Oh, someone doesn't understand why shit has happened or disagrees with it? Shitstorm.

Oh, someone finds the admins too lax for their own tastes? Shitstorm.

Oh, one admin fucked up? Time for a witch hunt and to impale that fuck. Shitstorm.

Oh, one admin fucked up AGAIN? All admins are fucking fucks, replace all of them. Shitstorm.

As much as it pains me to say, the community is (or at least large parts of it is) pretty much made out of azidoazide azide. Look it up.

But long story short, the community regularly explodes the way I see it at the smallest, if any, disturbance like being looked at wrong. Having transparent administration would make that infinitely worse.

[Skull132]

Two issues you compiled into one.

First is trust. "We've handled it" is a response that can mean an n-count of things now a days, and you lose trust towards the staff of action actually being taken when you report something. I can get behind that, and understand that. In my opinion, for the sake of clarity and building/keeping staff-player trust, I think it's completely fine for a staff member to say that, "We've warned the dude about doing X," or "He banned now." You're the reporting person, you are involved, so you have a right to know that the matter was resolved in accordance with the rules and whatever.

The second issue can solve in a slightly better fashion than what you propose, I find. No names, no specifics are needed. Instead, we just have the admins actually update the rules when necessary. There is never an instance where you need to point out that, "X did this, and got slammed for it, so I shouldn't do this." Instead, if something becomes an dislikeable trend that the admins start acting against regularly, they should just update the rules, or post an announcement about the general behaviour that they're now actively tracking (like we've done in the past). That is, frankly, a better solution to the same issue.

[Xelnagahunter]

I'm about to run off to do RL stuff, but I thought I'd fire off a quick reply here first as I think you've misunderstood the nature of my request. I don't need the admins to let it all hang out, that'd be way overkill and, honestly, I don't really care about most admin business. I just want a little bit of information about disciplinary actions to be made public so that people can have a clearer idea of what is and isn't allowed, and that the admins are actually active in enforcing server rules.

Sadly the issue becomes just like the children's book "If You Give A Mouse A Cookie." We do this, so the community wants more, and more, and more. I'm not saying your idea is wholly bad, and I understand and have a clear picture of what your looking for. I even respect your reasons fully, from a player's point of view. However, I also have to look at it from a larger point of view and weigh pros and cons on all of it. To me the potential cons severely outweigh the pros.

 

Two issues you compiled into one.

First is trust. "We've handled it" is a response that can mean an n-count of things now a days, and you lose trust towards the staff of action actually being taken when you report something. I can get behind that, and understand that. In my opinion, for the sake of clarity and building/keeping staff-player trust, I think it's completely fine for a staff member to say that, "We've warned the dude about doing X," or "He banned now." You're the reporting person, you are involved, so you have a right to know that the matter was resolved in accordance with the rules and whatever.

I was going to mention something in my first post about trusting staff, but it hit me that many of our users don't trust us, which complies on to Killer's post a bit about someone messing up can take the whole team down, even if it was a mistake. I wish we could be trusted to handle the issues in a way that we deem fit and not be criticized because we didn't perma ban a guy who made a mistake in game.

[Frances]

It's a convenient excuse to say that you don't want to go more public because you're afraid of backlash, but I think you'll find most users to be surprisingly reasonable.

Well, of course, there's also no need to make forum announcements whenever you ban people, or anything like that.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

It's a convenient excuse to say that you don't want to go more public because you're afraid of backlash, but I think you'll find most users to be surprisingly reasonable.

Well, of course, there's also no need to make forum announcements whenever you ban people, or anything like that.

I have very limited administrative capacity and handle exclusively the lore, but the amount of screaming I faced because my my attempts to be transparent are an indication that the majority take things very personally. If I can get hate mail about announcing a change to how polluted Earth is in our setting,, imagine sharing sensitive disciplinary action against players with the rest of the playerbase.

[Frances]

I have very limited administrative capacity and handle exclusively the lore, but the amount of screaming I faced because my my attempts to be transparent are an indication that the majority take things very personally. If I can get hate mail about announcing a change to how polluted Earth is in our setting,, imagine sharing sensitive disciplinary action against players with the rest of the playerbase.

well the people who take lore too seriously tend to be more autistic than the general population

The way I see it, the admins went down a path of [pretty stupid] decisions (publicly denouncing and banning a member for arbitrary reasons was one), then responded to the community's yelling with more yelling (the general response to all ensuing drama was another problem). Then, seeing these methods were ineffective, staff sounded a general retreat and they don't tend to get very involved with people anymore.

My point is, if everyone is nice, and doesn't do anything too retarded, we should be able to get along. Yes, some people will be mad anyway, but these people are in small and manageable enough quantities that they deserve being addressed (or shrugged off), rather than be left as an excuse to infringe on the collective ability of the community to have decent staff-users communication. Doing this wasn't a problem in my time, and considering pretty much everybody that had issues with the administration was either driven off or banned, it shouldn't be now either.

[Skull132]

Two issues you compiled into one.

First is trust. "We've handled it" is a response that can mean an n-count of things now a days, and you lose trust towards the staff of action actually being taken when you report something. I can get behind that, and understand that. In my opinion, for the sake of clarity and building/keeping staff-player trust, I think it's completely fine for a staff member to say that, "We've warned the dude about doing X," or "He banned now." You're the reporting person, you are involved, so you have a right to know that the matter was resolved in accordance with the rules and whatever.

I was going to mention something in my first post about trusting staff, but it hit me that many of our users don't trust us, which complies on to Killer's post a bit about someone messing up can take the whole team down, even if it was a mistake. I wish we could be trusted to handle the issues in a way that we deem fit and not be criticized because we didn't perma ban a guy who made a mistake in game.

 

The thing is, and what I've noticed, is that for some reason or another we're afraid to make mistakes, and we're afraid of having them pointed out. As a player, this is whatever. No one's really going to care if you turn into grumpy-kitten over someone calling your science experiments flawed. But staff should probably set a higher example. And it's not actually that hard.

Let's say we have Griffon McGriffindor having fun, and someone reports him to me. I assess, and I discuss the issue at hand with him. I don't see outright malicious intent in what he's done, so I default to my MO of a warning, followed by a 5-ish day ban if they do not comply with the warning (repeat the same offence, or an offence of similar nature). I do that, file the notes, and report back to the player who sent the ahelp about Griffon that I just talked to him. The worst thing can happen here is the player replying with a, "...That's it? You didn't ban him or something?" Basically, discord between the expectations of my actions, and my actual actions. At that point, I'd just explain myself in a short and concise manner, and carry on. If that does not satisfy the player who adminhelped, then he's free to post a staff complaint about me and we can go party there I can explain in greater detail what I did, why I do it (if I don't detect malicious intent, I've never issued bans on the first offence, regardless of the offence (possibly with only like, one or two exceptions); it's always been a warning first) and yeah. That should resolve it. It really isn't that hard, nor does it take much effort.

The thing to keep in mind is: if you're in the right, then you're in the right and you can always explain it in a short, clean form. If you're not, then it's fine to have a think about it, maybe consult another mod/admin, and re-evaluate your actions.

A small gem:

Honesty goes miles beyond the illusion of always being in the right.

[Killerhurtz]

I love you guys.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

I'm about to run off to do RL stuff, but I thought I'd fire off a quick reply here first as I think you've misunderstood the nature of my request. I don't need the admins to let it all hang out, that'd be way overkill and, honestly, I don't really care about most admin business. I just want a little bit of information about disciplinary actions to be made public so that people can have a clearer idea of what is and isn't allowed, and that the admins are actually active in enforcing server rules.

Sadly the issue becomes just like the children's book "If You Give A Mouse A Cookie." We do this, so the community wants more, and more, and more. I'm not saying your idea is wholly bad, and I understand and have a clear picture of what your looking for. I even respect your reasons fully, from a player's point of view. However, I also have to look at it from a larger point of view and weigh pros and cons on all of it. To me the potential cons severely outweigh the pros.

 

This is a textbook example of the "slippery slope" fallacy, very popularly misused by politicians and officials pretty much exactly the way you did here. If you want to know more, wikipedia is your friend, suffice to say if you invoke the slippery slope without backing it up you are literally Hitler. (And before anyone jumps on that, yes, I know it was a false analogy. I'm using it in an illustrative manner, and because it's funny).

 

Two issues you compiled into one.

First is trust. "We've handled it" is a response that can mean an n-count of things now a days, and you lose trust towards the staff of action actually being taken when you report something. I can get behind that, and understand that. In my opinion, for the sake of clarity and building/keeping staff-player trust, I think it's completely fine for a staff member to say that, "We've warned the dude about doing X," or "He banned now." You're the reporting person, you are involved, so you have a right to know that the matter was resolved in accordance with the rules and whatever.

I was going to mention something in my first post about trusting staff, but it hit me that many of our users don't trust us, which complies on to Killer's post a bit about someone messing up can take the whole team down, even if it was a mistake. I wish we could be trusted to handle the issues in a way that we deem fit and not be criticized because we didn't perma ban a guy who made a mistake in game.

 

Not to be rude or anything... but I don't know you, how can I trust you? I'm speaking both of you personally, who I've seen around the forum a bit and that's it, and the staff in general. Don't get me wrong, I like several of the staff, and in the handful of times they've spoken to me in an official capacity I've never felt they were being unfair, but trust is a strong word. The fact that the server is both growing and hasn't turned into a festering drama-hole are enough to convince me that they're generally competent, but beyond that I really don't know.

 

Two issues you compiled into one.

First is trust. "We've handled it" is a response that can mean an n-count of things now a days, and you lose trust towards the staff of action actually being taken when you report something. I can get behind that, and understand that. In my opinion, for the sake of clarity and building/keeping staff-player trust, I think it's completely fine for a staff member to say that, "We've warned the dude about doing X," or "He banned now." You're the reporting person, you are involved, so you have a right to know that the matter was resolved in accordance with the rules and whatever.

 

That's great for the person reporting it, but judging by what people are saying on the "whitelist security" thread, a lot of people simply aren't ahelping when they see something doing something against the rules. Seeing that the admins are actually active and responding to problems is likely to promote not only the idea that ahelping problems gets them solved, but also that certain behaviors are not acceptable.

 

The second issue can solve in a slightly better fashion than what you propose, I find. No names, no specifics are needed. Instead, we just have the admins actually update the rules when necessary. There is never an instance where you need to point out that, "X did this, and got slammed for it, so I shouldn't do this." Instead, if something becomes an dislikeable trend that the admins start acting against regularly, they should just update the rules, or post an announcement about the general behaviour that they're now actively tracking (like we've done in the past). That is, frankly, a better solution to the same issue.

 

This would certainly not be a bad idea, but the forums are a little out of the way for some people, and the rules are good... but they're also kinda general and open to interpretation. "Don't be a dick" is probably the worst offender there... it's a good general rule, but it could mean dramatically different things to different people and it isn't enforced to the letter because that would be a disaster. Without specific examples there's no way to have more than a general (and probably faulty in some respects) idea of what is and is not allowed.

However, if you really don't like naming names, perhaps simply publishing (preferably in-game at round end) a list of offenses and the responses taken?

[Garnascus]

I've been thinking about this a lot. I think there is some merit to providing a little transparency. I'm particularly inclined to informing the player who whelped the issue that X was warned or banned for Y but I'm not entirely sure anything past that would have a net positive gain for the server.

Perhaps simply displaying a number at the end of round like X players where warned and Y players where banned? It might provide some clarity to the community that we are doing things while keeping exactly who was punished and for what strictly confidential between the responding staff member and the parties that whelped the problem.

[Frances]

Perhaps simply displaying a number at the end of round like X players where warned and Y players where banned? It might provide some clarity to the community that we are doing things while keeping exactly who was punished and for what strictly confidential between the responding staff member and the parties that whelped the problem.

I don't think we really need to keep a tally of admin warns/bans. I'd rather have a holistic idea of what the admins are doing, and that's the kind of transparency I feel would be needed. Whenever users bring up an issue via a thread (maybe especially complaints?), it'd be good to have clear musings and explanations from staff, rather than just a super-neutral acknowledgement.

[Xelnagahunter]

This is a textbook example of the "slippery slope" fallacy, very popularly misused by politicians and officials pretty much exactly the way you did here. If you want to know more, wikipedia is your friend, suffice to say if you invoke the slippery slope without backing it up you are literally Hitler. (And before anyone jumps on that, yes, I know it was a false analogy. I'm using it in an illustrative manner, and because it's funny).

If I'd not seen this firsthand, I'd agree with you that it's not a good way to think. I hate thinking like this and I know every group is different, but this is a theme I've seen too often and simply dislike. It's become ingrained to me that this will happen, every time. If a group can prove me wrong, I'll gladly stop arguing this point.

 

Two issues you compiled into one.

First is trust. "We've handled it" is a response that can mean an n-count of things now a days, and you lose trust towards the staff of action actually being taken when you report something. I can get behind that, and understand that. In my opinion, for the sake of clarity and building/keeping staff-player trust, I think it's completely fine for a staff member to say that, "We've warned the dude about doing X," or "He banned now." You're the reporting person, you are involved, so you have a right to know that the matter was resolved in accordance with the rules and whatever.

I was going to mention something in my first post about trusting staff, but it hit me that many of our users don't trust us, which complies on to Killer's post a bit about someone messing up can take the whole team down, even if it was a mistake. I wish we could be trusted to handle the issues in a way that we deem fit and not be criticized because we didn't perma ban a guy who made a mistake in game.

 

Not to be rude or anything... but I don't know you, how can I trust you? I'm speaking both of you personally, who I've seen around the forum a bit and that's it, and the staff in general. Don't get me wrong, I like several of the staff, and in the handful of times they've spoken to me in an official capacity I've never felt they were being unfair, but trust is a strong word. The fact that the server is both growing and hasn't turned into a festering drama-hole are enough to convince me that they're generally competent, but beyond that I really don't know.

This one is a bit harder. I had thought of ways to combat it then remembered I'm a lot more trusting/forgiving than most people. I was gonna say that you might trust a cashier to give you the correct change, but people do the math, check receipts, and count the change anyways. So it turns out, while I type, that I learn I have no rebuttal here that isn't directly from my personal views of the world.

[Skull132]

Two issues you compiled into one.

First is trust. "We've handled it" is a response that can mean an n-count of things now a days, and you lose trust towards the staff of action actually being taken when you report something. I can get behind that, and understand that. In my opinion, for the sake of clarity and building/keeping staff-player trust, I think it's completely fine for a staff member to say that, "We've warned the dude about doing X," or "He banned now." You're the reporting person, you are involved, so you have a right to know that the matter was resolved in accordance with the rules and whatever.

 

That's great for the person reporting it, but judging by what people are saying on the "whitelist security" thread, a lot of people simply aren't ahelping when they see something doing something against the rules. Seeing that the admins are actually active and responding to problems is likely to promote not only the idea that ahelping problems gets them solved, but also that certain behaviors are not acceptable.

 

There aren't many cases where you need to publicly showcase unacceptable behaviour. And those cases that are, those need to be managed in a fashion similar to how the geneticist issue was handled. Otherwise, it's a lot of finger-pointing for one-off things, and that's just childish, ultimately. As for building trust, it won't really work. It'll come off as boasting or beating a dead horse more times than naught. It's better to have said trust built by giving the reporter/involved parties the information that shows them that the admins have managed it, and that's it. Those people will see that work gets done, and maybe spread the word a little. Going full bore, "We banned a dude for being a bad sec officer this round, don't do this!" is a childish approach.

 

The second issue can solve in a slightly better fashion than what you propose, I find. No names, no specifics are needed. Instead, we just have the admins actually update the rules when necessary. There is never an instance where you need to point out that, "X did this, and got slammed for it, so I shouldn't do this." Instead, if something becomes an dislikeable trend that the admins start acting against regularly, they should just update the rules, or post an announcement about the general behaviour that they're now actively tracking (like we've done in the past). That is, frankly, a better solution to the same issue.

 

This would certainly not be a bad idea, but the forums are a little out of the way for some people, and the rules are good... but they're also kinda general and open to interpretation. "Don't be a dick" is probably the worst offender there... it's a good general rule, but it could mean dramatically different things to different people and it isn't enforced to the letter because that would be a disaster. Without specific examples there's no way to have more than a general (and probably faulty in some respects) idea of what is and is not allowed.

However, if you really don't like naming names, perhaps simply publishing (preferably in-game at round end) a list of offenses and the responses taken?

 

Some rules have to remain general, that's how it is.

Also, you speak counter to your own idea: publishing something at the end of round has an even smaller chance of making people aware, than publishing a memo on the forums. Because only the 50 or so people, at the best of times, who are on at the time will see it. Everyone else, roughly 150 other players, will be in the dark. It also lacks a proper papertrail, and will turn into he said/she said. To stop all of that, you publish either player memos, make announcements or change the rules. All of those three are more visible, will be read by more people, and can actually be checked up on by everyone and referenced more easily.

And I do think you're splitting a hair a little. While I will give you that a good few rules are too general or even outdated, I don't think it's necessary to make an example out of every case. You'll literally be overwhelmed with information at that point, and you won't know what the fuck to do with it (also, keep in mind that punishment also depends on context -- sometimes player A will get banned for something player B only got a verbal warning for, because player A had a trackrecord of being a shitler). The dependency of punishment on context is the thing that's really going to screw over your idea, as you pitch it. Allow me to elaborate. Since Jackboot was already kind enough to wave about his year old job ban, we'll use it as an example. His job ban was issued with this reason:

Final incident - broke into the kitchen as CE to make eggs, evaded security when questioned about it, tried to grab the spare ID to give himself access/make himself acting captain so he could make his eggs and circumvent security. Due to all of the previous incidents, whitelist stripped.

If we follow your idea, then you'd know that he (or someone) got banned for previous incidents and then breaking into the kitchen as the CE and being silly with head liberties. You, as you say, would use this to gauge what the admins are actively looking for, but you are lacking crucial information. "Previous incidents" -- you do not know how many incidents there were, you do not know how many times he was talked to, how much action was taken beforehand, how a timeframe the incidents spanned, etcetera. And so, you would be lacking crucial information to alter your own play. All you'd know is this: we banned someone for their previous history, and a somewhat silly offence. Whereas with an actual announcement on the forums, we can give you proper information of what we're looking to not see further. An example of what we've done in the past, that related to the same issue, can be seen here and here. In the second thread, Chris and I very clearly outline what we see as the issue, why we see it as an issue, what the staff will be doing about it and what we expect in the future. Heck, the first three points were fit into a very clear, concise paragraph:

Players, in the past few months we (the server staff) have noticed a severe lack of proper leadership capabilities in Head of Staff roles. What's worse, is that we've abuse of such positions. This needs to change. As such, we will start actively assigning job bans as we feel necessary, and we will be overlooking the present whitelist system, as it obviously is not functional.

 

Do not: abuse your position as a head of staff. (And examples of specifics are brought in as the discussion continues. Granted, they could have been there at the initial post.)

Do not: act silly in your position as a head of staff.

What we will be doing: start issuing job bans from heads of staff more aggressively, and overhauling the whitelist system.

My question is now this. What information would you get out of knowing that someone was banned for previous incidents and then having silly fun as a CE, that you would not get out of the two threads I linked?

[Lady_of_Ravens]

Okay, this is getting cumbersome... lets kill the quotes of the quotes where you quoted that I quoted you quoting me.

 

If I'd not seen this firsthand, I'd agree with you that it's not a good way to think. I hate thinking like this and I know every group is different, but this is a theme I've seen too often and simply dislike. It's become ingrained to me that this will happen, every time. If a group can prove me wrong, I'll gladly stop arguing this point.

 

I don't really know how to respond to this at this time 'cause, you know, it's bloody hard to prove a negative. I can say, however, that in the more than a decade since I first started playing small community games (MUDs, minecraft servers, that sort of thing) most of them haven't had anywhere near the level of secrecy on the subject as we have here.

 

This one is a bit harder. I had thought of ways to combat it then remembered I'm a lot more trusting/forgiving than most people. I was gonna say that you might trust a cashier to give you the correct change, but people do the math, check receipts, and count the change anyways. So it turns out, while I type, that I learn I have no rebuttal here that isn't directly from my personal views of the world.

 

Well, I guess you know how I feel responding to your last point.

Before you say you're that trusting, though, remember you're the one saying the players can't be trusted to handle a little more transparency. It all comes off rather a bit crypto-facist, if you'll pardon my taking the opportunity to use that word in a sentence. XD

Also, you may want to start paying a little more attention to cashiers... I don't know as I've ever had one try and cheat me, but they do make mistakes often enough it's worth a little double-checking. And I can say that I've had a bank teller "lose" a $500 deposit before (also, her job).

 

There aren't many cases where you need to publicly showcase unacceptable behaviour. And those cases that are, those need to be managed in a fashion similar to how the geneticist issue was handled. Otherwise, it's a lot of finger-pointing for one-off things, and that's just childish, ultimately. As for building trust, it won't really work. It'll come off as boasting or beating a dead horse more times than naught. It's better to have said trust built by giving the reporter/involved parties the information that shows them that the admins have managed it, and that's it. Those people will see that work gets done, and maybe spread the word a little. Going full bore, "We banned a dude for being a bad sec officer this round, don't do this!" is a childish approach.

 

Actually, with a little more serious/useful phrasing, that's exactly the sort of information I want. And I don't think it's childish at all... rather, I think it's the far more adult, mature way of dealing with the matter. We're a fairly mature community and, while I think the change would probably 'cause some transitional butthurt, we'd be better off being more open and informed.

 

Some rules have to remain general, that's how it is.

Also, you speak counter to your own idea: publishing something at the end of round has an even smaller chance of making people aware, than publishing a memo on the forums. Because only the 50 or so people, at the best of times, who are on at the time will see it. Everyone else, roughly 150 other players, will be in the dark. It also lacks a proper papertrail, and will turn into he said/she said. To stop all of that, you publish either player memos, make announcements or change the rules. All of those three are more visible, will be read by more people, and can actually be checked up on by everyone and referenced more easily.

And I do think you're splitting a hair a little. While I will give you that a good few rules are too general or even outdated, I don't think it's necessary to make an example out of every case. You'll literally be overwhelmed with information at that point, and you won't know what the fuck to do with it (also, keep in mind that punishment also depends on context -- sometimes player A will get banned for something player B only got a verbal warning for, because player A had a trackrecord of being a shitler).

It's better to go over the rules, give them a spiffying up, and to publish memos. It really is.

 

Oh of course some of the rules have to be subjective, I totally get that. We're a community of gamers, after all, not lawyers. But I also think you're missing how very valuable even a little bit of information can be to those of us not in the know about how the staff interpret and enforce those rules. When nothing is said, it's very natural to assume nothing is being done. You've commented in some other threads about the lack of ahelps about problems such as sec-abuse and I'd be willing to bet this is a significant factor in at least some cases.

What I'm suggesting, then, is that when an admin punishes or warns someone, they add a line to a document which is published at the end of the round when people actually have a moment to read it, consisting of short entries with the character, offense, mitigating/aggravating history, and punishment. Something like:

Griffy McBaldylocks - Welderbomb Grief - no prior history - banned

Steve Tiddles - abuse of security position - repeat offender - temporary job ban

NAN-1 - messed up badly following synthetic laws - first offense & new player - talked to

The names could even be left out entirely... people involved would see that the admins dealt with the situation, people not involved would see that the admins are actively enforcing the rules, and anyone not on for the round wouldn't see a thing (which is fine, there's no reason to encourage bringing more drama to the forums).

[Lady_of_Ravens]

Okay, Skull, somehow I managed to miss about half of your post while writing/revising mine (most of which I did this morning), so my response sort of skips over the last 2/3 of what you said. I've read it, though, and I'll totally respond to it... in the morning. I've had a long day of shopping and am way too worn out right now for more debate/discussion.

[Xelnagahunter]

At this point I'm not going to continue kicking the horse. My opinions were expressed and I think you understand my views even if you disagree with them and for the most part I see yours. The only thing I have to add is that these opinions I have stated are exactly that and not those of our active staff team. I shouldn't have to say it, but I'd rather not have anyone thinking that I am speaking for our administration staff in any way.

[EvilBrage]

I feel obligated to weigh in based on my administration experience with other servers (albeit never SS13.)

As stated earlier, gaming communities tend to act very similarly in terms of punishment and the explanation thereof. In the interest of shedding some light on why that is, consider that you may eventually be one of the individuals punished for some sort of infraction, somehow. While we (as human beings) do tend to look at punishments of others as indicative of an innate character flaw, we attribute our own punishments as externally motivated (the exact name of this psychological phenomenon escapes me at the moment.) For the staff to be semi-surreptitious about this is ultimately an act of mercy, and giving a reprimanded player the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, if the administrators were to publicly announce "we have banned EvilBrage for three days for End-of-Round grief," your innate conclusion is not that I did something in a specific circumstance, it's that I like to grief and fuck with people.

In shifting to a more open structure, you're also shifting the results of bans and other punitive actions from a constructive attempt to conform the individual into an acceptable persona to interact with others on the server (or in severe cases, removing them entirely if they're unable or unwilling to conform) into a destructive form of action, in which we are taking action to punish and humiliate the player rather than reform them - believe it or not, it kills communities.

When I first became an administrator for another gaming server and elected to browse through the staff-only forums designated for discussing individual player behavior and punishment for specific events, I was frankly appalled at how many players I knew personally had done things that were very malicious and selfish - but without that knowledge, they seemed sociable and kind enough individuals to play with, which leads me to my point.

Nobody is perfect; everyone will have an embarrassing moment, and when yours comes, how do you want the staff to react?

Several of you were wondering why Cassie's fiasco with the Apartments server and the log-spreading was stamped out and that player was removed from the community, and the answer is exactly as I've outlined. I can say without a doubt that had the precedent set there been allowed to continue, a lot of good players who made simple mistakes would not be playing any more. Being "transparent" in that manner encourages humiliation in the court of public opinion and ostracized players will simply leave. If you think cliques are bad now, encouraging more transparency would exponentially inflate the problem.

This may be surprising to hear from me since I'm also outspoken in my belief that Aurora's complaints aren't handled very effectively, but this isn't the solution to that (or any) problem.