Admin Feedback Thread (Archived)

[jammi]

Don't know how much of this will be applicable, seeing as I was on the team a long, long time ago, but I can try and clarify some of this with my own experiences.

missing transparency:

It is often simply not clear enough how you guys came to a decision. It is said that each and every decision is a communal effort - but for some reason - at least to me... it rarely feels like it. ( especially when it is mentioned that there are times to rush through reports for example - i simply cannot imagine the team sitting together to discuss each report fairly and objectively )

How much discussion a report gets very much depends on the complexity of the situation. As an example, a clearcut case where there is absolutely no dispute in what happened could be cleared by one (in desperate circumstances) or usually two people. Generally, what happens is an admin will go and leave a post with their thoughts on every notice in the reports subforum. This allows consensus on a course of action to be built very quickly, without the discussion being sidetracked or lost on Skype. For simple cases, the second responder can then clear the case. If it's more complicated, they'll wait for more discussion to build a firmer position on what to do.

also - SRP approvals/disapprovals - do not only write "approved" but write approved WHY... and if a SRP was rejected - also write WHY ... openly, publicly - so that other players can learn from successes and mistakes.

I can see pros and cons to this. I think on Discovery people get so wrapped up in the idea of trial by forum, that publicly posting anything that is specific to an individual/situation is considered taboo. This isn't necessarily helpful, because the wider public can benefit from seeing why things are/aren't permitted.

However, that's not why most people want to see - most people (and it's the same reason sanction threads involving faction ships tends to get many, many more views than others) tend to derive a somewhat gory pleasure from watching a trainwreck play out. And that's what a public disapproved SRP would basically be - the admin team publicly shaming someone by explaining that their RP is bad. I really get why they don't want to put that justification 'out there' for everyone to see, because it's a very emotive and touchy subject for the person involved.

If there's a way to reconcile the first and second paragraph into something workable, I'm all ears though.

or if you cannot - or do not want to go on with events ( like mining rotations etc. ) - state that things stop - and why they stop - even or especially when the reasons are mundane like "no time" or "i don t feel like doing the work now.."

For a short while, I was the event coordinator. I suppose this would've been a good idea when I burnt out, but in practical terms I'd dropped off the Discovery radar completely then and wasn't really in a position to be posting about anything, let alone notifying people that cargo events wouldn't be happening. Best case scenario, a stop update would be nice but isn't always going to happen due to the nature of the stoppage.

I think a potentially good way to get around this would be to write up 10-15 'event packages' and have a script that either cycles through them regularly, or randomises them over the course of a year. Other than the high initial workload, cargo and mining events would then look after themselves, and the admin team could then focus on other stuff.

Sometimes sanctions seem to satisfy a sort of frustration or vengeance rather than acting as a means to better the community.

That might be the reason someone reports an incident, but it's definitely not how it's processed. Once an event's reported, ball's in the admin's courts and unless they can see that someone has clearly baited the other person, things are dealt with objectively. With the baiting angle, that's when the situation becomes "complicated", and the procedures I mentioned above kick in. And yes, sanctions are basically designed to be punitive. It's in the name, funnily enough. Probably why they're not called 'reprimands' or 'advisories'.

it is unacceptable to browse unmarked threads for bits and pieces of "green" to further understand the finer limitations of a rule. Although it is said that precidents are not the basis for future sanctions, such precidents are often cited - and the better informed forum dwellers are safer than the ones that "just know the official rules".

But knowing the official rules should be sufficient never to get sanctioned in the first place. When a rule gets refined and/or adds relevant precidents - those precidents should always be included in the rule - at least as an example.


more - lets call them "non violent" sanctions:

the goal is to allow a better gameplay by achieving a win-win situation. a reported player should not be made a villain but offered ways to improve. a ban or the removal of stuff without proper instruction is insuficient in my opinion.

I'd agree here. Having a place where all of the clarifications could be codified in a sort of Q&A format would be really helpful as an appendix to the rules.

a better sanction explanation:

if the sanction threads are what is meant to better the sanctioned players - i can confidently say ... they are not enough. they are cryptic by cyting the rule - but often not the idea of the rule on an individual basis. - they are also in some cases written in a mockery or spiteful manner further estranging players and marking them as "unwanted".

also the first step should ALWAYS be to talk to the offender - get their point of view ( because your justice system really is only based on the reporter - and a decision is often made without consulting the reported ) ... Too often sanctioned players come to the forum being totally obvlivious about what happened - only to be redirected to the sanction threads.

Snark probably doesn't help, but was generally reserved for repeat offenders who'd been warned off in the past and hadn't learned - or else people who were obviously trolling and also didn't care. Don't know about now, but you're right that it probably isn't helpful. Catering to an audience tends to make the targeted individual upset (which funnily enough was also the problem with the SRP transparency suggestion).

As for the second part - absolutely not, no. Very often it's a serious pain to know who an offender even is without an inordinate amount of work. Normally the easiest way to find out is to bop them on the head with a sanction notice and see what surfaces on the forum. All sanctions are processed because they have met a minimum threshold of evidence. This can be collaborated with server logs and other administrative tools to ascertain a problem has actually occurred.

Earlier on you stated that you were skeptical that the team consulted with each other before processing notices - but then you'd also expect them to consult with every offender prior to processing the notice, too? It's an unworkable suggestion, and also the reason why there is an appeal function. If the offender has a legitimately mitigating circumstance, or proof that vindicates them / shows the report was malicious, then justice has prevailed and the notice is corrected.

Admins will always talk to an offender if they're actually willing to engage with them. Someone who digs their heels in, screams and obstinately refuses to admit any wrong doing "just because" without any supporting evidence is likely to get an equally curt reply.

As I said, this is all based on past experience, so I don't know how much holds up now.

Nice summation, nothing drastically different now - Tunicle