[Let's talk about dialogue.]

Admin(s) Key: No specific admin, this relates to process
Your ckey (Byond username): Gandalf Greyhame
Your Discord name (if applicable): Mithrandalf

Date(s) of incident (GMT preferred): Again, not really applicable

Nature of complaint: Assuming this section exists purely as a multiple choice, I feel the following;

clarification required, misapplication of rules, feedback

 

Brief description (tl;dr here. Just the critical elements):

This complaint is very much focused on feedback on the administration process, and not any one admin in particular.

In a nutshell, specifically I feel like the complete enforced lack of dialogue in the ban process needs talking about. I've been banned twice now, and I feel that either of these would make for perfect examples that I could break apart with screenshots to illustrate my point, however, I will not do so to avoid having my point dismissed.

Full description of events:

To summarise; the ban appeal system, and the way the administrative staff utilise it, are not at all conducive to a community-led system of server rule enforcement. Ban appeals exist invisible to the general posters and are more commonly than not closed with a single reply. Once the thread is closed, the person is then unable and specifically rulebound to be unable to seek any further recourse. This shuts down any potential for issue-specific conversations to occur, and stifles the ability of the community to provide relevant feedback over rules and enforcement to the staffers. 

I would make this point in the ban appeal section, following my server ban for rampant fursecution, but said appeal was denied on the spot without any allowance for dialogue, response or recourse. For this reason, I'd like to make it clear that I am not using this section to argue that I should be unbanned; I'm making a much broader point that should make this complaint feel more at home on this forum section. Specifically that I'm seeing very frequent occurrences of ban appeals being shut down, more to force the appealer to stop talking, than because the issue is settled. This is also commonly the case in Ahelps, judging from personal experience and reading ban appeals of others.

In no small part, the way ban appeals are hidden to general posters until accepted or denied is very clearly a contributing factor to the point I'm making here. Transparency is essential to accountability, and this is a system where transparency can only exist after-the-fact once the only non-staff member involved in the conversation is rule-bound to silence on the issue. That's not a good way for any system to operate. This is a way of operating that very effectively stifles the ability for feedback to be provided while it is relevant. Unless someone takes their issue to the Admin Complaints section (as I'm doing here, very much risking having this being handwaved and denied on the spot as being a 'second ban appeal', perhaps even risking an extension to the ban or the 'no appeal' time), or happens to have a friend who is willing to, unprompted, have the dialogue on their behalf, they are unable to voice any issues they may have had with the administrator or the banning process until their ban has expired or been revoked, by which point most people would much rather not risk receiving another ban in response to this, and simply return to the game which they had missed.

I can understand that managing an ss13 community is no easy task. Of all the community-based games on the internet, spessmen has a notable tendency to create internal politics, infighting and drama. It's a game that frustrates people and brings them into close contact with one another constantly, where one person's legitimate clown prank is another's griefing. I've, very intentionally, never adminned an ss13 server, but I have been close to and involved with the process in the past. I've been on a server with a player who spent every round doing his best to ruin everyone's fun without actually breaking any rules, and eventually single-handedly killed the server off. I understand why there's a Rule Zero, and I fully get why sometimes issues have to be simply put to rest in the interests of the server.

Here's a screenshot from the first page of the 'declined' section of the ban appeals board:

This isn't tricky issues being settled despite unclear circumstances or plausible deniability. Every one of these threads with 1 reply has been locked with a single response. This is routine denial of any dialogue or discussion. In my experience, adminhelps that lead to bans rarely involve more than 2 messages from the admin in question either. At no point in the process is an actual dialogue between two people, in which the issue can be discussed, understood and worked through, allowed. The only time there is even the allowance for an actual conversation is once the ban has expired and the relevant parties will simply be hoping it never has to happen again.

I feel I've talked about problems enough here, now I'd like to talk about solutions.

A lot of servers have similar processes to deal with problem players, but I wouldn't say they have the same problems. For the most part, this is because they have mechanics in place to alleviate them.

Firstly, and probably most obviously, the simplest way to make this less of a problem is just for admins to get less trigger-happy with the lock button. "I consider this issue closed" is one hell of a way for the person involved to kill a thread on the first reply. Simply allowing ban appealers to reply at least once to the fully-conveyed version of why they were banned seems like a no-brainer. While I understand some rounds are chaotic and demanding for staff, spending a little more time explaining in the Ahelp process would also be helpful and may even prevent people from needing to be banned in the first place.

Secondly, and again a very simple thing, would be to remove the invisibility on ban appeals to the community. People don't necessarily need to be able to reply to the threads, but removing that layer of obfuscation would at least allow any developing patterns, issues with administrators, or divisive decisions, to be much more visible to the community as they happen, in a state before the gavel has fallen. Transparency is always good.

Last one I got is that a lot of servers have a 'second opinion' system for ban appeals. Bans beyond a minimum threshold that have had their appeals denied can be appealed once more, directly to a head staffer or senior administrator. It's a pretty common system on a lot of servers, and is effective at ensuring there are minimal issues with inexperienced staffers making what could be considered the wrong call, or any personal prejudices or involvement. Again, it's recourse and accountability, both of which are good things. The minimum threshold and requirement to actually type up a second application ensure that the relevant senior staffers won't be given more more to deal with, as the day-to-day short bans and the griefers will be largely weeded out.

Considering the content of this, I'd very much like to request that if these posts are normally invisible to the members, that it be made visible and opened up. This isn't really a complaint about an administrator at all, and I'd much rather see it as a round-table community discussion than a hidden debate.

And to address the elephant in the room, yes this in no small part motivated by the ban I just received. Again, I will not be arguing the merits and shortcomings of that ban here, though I will say that it can be viewed as a poster boy for the issue here.

No TL;DR, sorry lads this one's important.