elmon
Veteran Member
Asst. Server Liaison
fionn sucks
Posts: 1,476
| Likes: 1,842
|
Post by elmon on Jul 7, 2020 23:26:20 GMT
The joke bans weren't an issue. That's the whole point. OP literally made the report because he wanted to 'prove a point' that everyone joke bans and that it isn't a problem, then is upset when IA doesn't take action on something that he himself doesn't think is a problem, how does that make logical sense? The conduct policy states 'misuse of admin commands' that is vague enough where joke punishments don't fall under it. If something isn't against policy why would IA take action against it? I think a whole lot of context is missing from this though, and that's why my entire point was that it should never have got to IA, because we should have senior admins who are there as it happens who can make a judgement call. From what I've read of the thread it seems that IA handled it pretty poorly anyway, the whole 'Blackbox' approach of IA goes against everything this server stands for and to only on a thread calling them out go 'Well it was a nonsense report' feels like a pretty poor show to me. This thread has proved hopefully that more things need to change to make this work if we want it to work, because I do think IA should have taken more action, or at least explained it better to the OP reporting it. Regardless of if it was to prove a point or not, it's something that seems to come up a lot and I think should be being watched and seniors should be stepping up and making sure that if it starts to get out of hand or is detrimental to the player experience that admins are warned appropriately in game. I think the way IA currently operates is perfectly fine, they can't be 100% transparent due to the nature of some of the data they collect (eg. wellness checks) but they're pretty good especially if you ask zevante questions he's pretty open to all questions I've asked so far, even showed me my own file. I personally do not see an issue with how this was handled, perhaps a little bit with OP not being told whether his report had led to action, but I've already asked zevante about this and he said he's started doing that.
|
|
|
Post by zevante on Jul 7, 2020 23:46:54 GMT
There are multiple points I could argue about on this thread, but the major one I want to cover is;
I told you already that the incident with administrators abusing commands would be a no-action considering that a majority of our staff were already involved in it. It's not our job to keep every single person under a magnifying glass 24/7 of the day just because they were dicking around by joke smiting and banning one another. We're not authoritarians, and it would be absurd to purge half our admin list just because everyone jokes around too much. That being said, we also don't like how administrators leave a bad precedent by abusing commands, and are working to avoid persistent incidents like that. Don't mistake that for "admins can abuse commands and we'll do nothing" because that's not true.
I also remember telling you that regardless off the "no action" outcome, we'd keep your submitted report and logs in our files as evidence to look back to should another admin be under scrutiny by the public for abusing commands (or related).
|
|
|
Post by DragonSlayer2189 on Jul 7, 2020 23:49:06 GMT
Ok, I'm making some needed clarification here, the problem here is not that I'm fine with jokebanning but yet I made a thread about how I'm unsatisfied with how the IA team didn't do something about the jokebanning, I'm fine with that. however, I clearly stated, both in this report, and in this thread, that if jokebanning is not against the rules, then it should be clarified that this is the case, because as of right now, its a gray area, that could be considered against the rules, but according to IA it isn't
the problem is that IA did not make any attempt to clarify that jokebanning is perfectly fine, even after I explicitly said that even if jokebanning is ok that should be clarified
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 7, 2020 23:53:22 GMT
the problem is that IA did not make any attempt to clarify that jokebanning is perfectly fine, even after I explicitly said that even if jokebanning is ok that should be clarified IA checks the reports and decides what should be done according to the rules. As most current admins are breaking this rule, the rule is not a common sense representation of what it's supposed to say. In that case, IA decided that the admins responsible should not be suspended. However, it is not IA's job to change the rules or to decide if it is or is not okay. That is the job of the Owner and the Executive Admin.
|
|
|
Post by DragonSlayer2189 on Jul 7, 2020 23:58:27 GMT
the problem is that IA did not make any attempt to clarify that jokebanning is perfectly fine, even after I explicitly said that even if jokebanning is ok that should be clarified IA checks the reports and decides what should be done according to the rules. As most current admins are breaking this rule, the rule is not a common sense representation of what it's supposed to say. In that case, IA decided that the admins responsible should not be suspended. However, it is not IA's job to change the rules or to decide if it is or is not okay. That is the job of the Owner and the Executive Admin. however, as it says in the internal affairs announcement they are supposed to which as far as I, and the rest of the public's eye, can see, they did not do
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 8, 2020 0:02:01 GMT
IA checks the reports and decides what should be done according to the rules. As most current admins are breaking this rule, the rule is not a common sense representation of what it's supposed to say. In that case, IA decided that the admins responsible should not be suspended. However, it is not IA's job to change the rules or to decide if it is or is not okay. That is the job of the Owner and the Executive Admin. however, as it says in the internal affairs announcement they are supposed to which as far as I, and the rest of the public's eye, can see, they did not do IA does work directly with the executive admin. However, the Executive Admins interpretation of the policy is that it's too unspecific for the jokebans to fall under it. That is not the problem of IA. If you want to argue policy changes or policy interpretation, bring it up with them. I am not a member of IA, my role in the discord is to be a viewer to watch for corruption or going against the server. There has been zero case of this, ever.
|
|
|
Post by DragonSlayer2189 on Jul 8, 2020 0:04:56 GMT
however, as it says in the internal affairs announcement they are supposed to which as far as I, and the rest of the public's eye, can see, they did not do IA does work directly with the executive admin. However, the Executive Admins interpretation of the policy is that it's too unspecific for the jokebans to fall under it. That is not the problem of IA. If you want to argue policy changes or policy interpretation, bring it up with them. that is the problem of IA especially considering that in my report i asked that whether it is or isn't allowed doesn't matter, all that matters is that it should be made more clear which one is the case, that was the whole point of the entire report (very summarized tho)
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 8, 2020 0:06:19 GMT
IA does work directly with the executive admin. However, the Executive Admins interpretation of the policy is that it's too unspecific for the jokebans to fall under it. That is not the problem of IA. If you want to argue policy changes or policy interpretation, bring it up with them. that is the problem of IA especially considering that in my report i asked that whether it is or isn't allowed doesn't matter, all that matters is that it should be made more clear which one is the case, that was the whole point of the entire report (very summarized tho) Again, if you want clarification, bring it up with the Executive Admin. Although IA does work with the Executive Admin, that does not mean that IA speaks for them. IA brought up this issue with the Executive Admin, and their response, as I said, is that it is allowed. If you want further clarification, bring it up with them like I've said. IA's job here is finished.
|
|
|
Post by DragonSlayer2189 on Jul 8, 2020 1:07:22 GMT
that is the problem of IA especially considering that in my report i asked that whether it is or isn't allowed doesn't matter, all that matters is that it should be made more clear which one is the case, that was the whole point of the entire report (very summarized tho) Again, if you want clarification, bring it up with the Executive Admin. Although IA does work with the Executive Admin, that does not mean that IA speaks for them. IA brought up this issue with the Executive Admin, and their response, as I said, is that it is allowed. If you want further clarification, bring it up with them like I've said. IA's job here is finished. there is still no actual proof that they even did that, and even then, thats ignoring the other problems with IA that i have mentioned
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 8, 2020 1:08:34 GMT
Again, if you want clarification, bring it up with the Executive Admin. Although IA does work with the Executive Admin, that does not mean that IA speaks for them. IA brought up this issue with the Executive Admin, and their response, as I said, is that it is allowed. If you want further clarification, bring it up with them like I've said. IA's job here is finished. there is still no actual proof that they even did that, and even then, thats ignoring the other problems with IA that i have mentioned No proof that they even did what? Brought it up with the Executive Admin? IA has no reason to disclose their discussions.
|
|
|
Post by DragonSlayer2189 on Jul 8, 2020 1:14:58 GMT
there is still no actual proof that they even did that, and even then, thats ignoring the other problems with IA that i have mentioned No proof that they even did what? Brought it up with the Executive Admin? IA has no reason to disclose their discussions. thats.... literally the problem that i have brought up. IA should be having much better communications especially with the person who reported the admins in question, you would think that they would confer with the person who is reporting this and tell them that they talked with the EAO and they said it was ok, or even just say that they came to a conclusion. but instead they said nothing, at all, to me or anyone else, IA needs to be more open about their communications. and if you are asking me to ask the EAO to clarify the rule, that's part of this post as well, however it should have been IA's job because they should be trying to make sure that there is no need for a followup report unless something crazily new has been brought to their attention. I would also like to disclose that multiple people do agree with me, even if they have not posted their opinions on this thread
|
|
zeseryu
Veteran Member
Admin Officer
ops rights activist
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by zeseryu on Jul 8, 2020 1:22:09 GMT
No proof that they even did what? Brought it up with the Executive Admin? IA has no reason to disclose their discussions. thats.... literally the problem that i have brought up. IA should be having much better communications especially with the person who reported the admins in question, you would think that they would confer with the person who is reporting this and tell them that they talked with the EAO and they said it was ok, or even just say that they came to a conclusion. but instead they said nothing, at all, to me or anyone else, IA needs to be more open about their communications. and if you are asking me to ask the EAO to clarify the rule, that's part of this post as well, however it should have been IA's job because they should be trying to make sure that there is no need for a followup report unless something crazily new has been brought to their attention. I would also like to disclose that multiple people do agree with me, even if they have not posted their opinions on this thread IA is under no obligation to disclose anything to you. Nothing came out of it so why would they make a follow up report? Im like 95% sure i've said before your report is a non-issue on the server several weeks ago, and even addressed the "are joke bans allowed" on this thread TWO months ago. totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/66954/thoughts-on-admin-abuse-policiesWhether or not you actually read it is your problem, the rule was clarified and I even modified it to show that. Here's what happened: IA showed me the report, i asked something along the lines "so they're just jokes?" which they replied yes. I said "this doesnt break our conduct policy." We moved on and that was it. It's a non-issue that im not sure why you're still caught up on.
|
|
|
Post by DragonSlayer2189 on Jul 8, 2020 1:32:30 GMT
thats.... literally the problem that i have brought up. IA should be having much better communications especially with the person who reported the admins in question, you would think that they would confer with the person who is reporting this and tell them that they talked with the EAO and they said it was ok, or even just say that they came to a conclusion. but instead they said nothing, at all, to me or anyone else, IA needs to be more open about their communications. and if you are asking me to ask the EAO to clarify the rule, that's part of this post as well, however it should have been IA's job because they should be trying to make sure that there is no need for a followup report unless something crazily new has been brought to their attention. I would also like to disclose that multiple people do agree with me, even if they have not posted their opinions on this thread IA is under no obligation to disclose anything to you. Nothing came out of it so why would they make a follow up report? Im like 95% sure i've said before your report is a non-issue on the server several weeks ago, and even addressed the "are joke bans allowed" on this thread TWO months ago. totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/66954/thoughts-on-admin-abuse-policiesWhether or not you actually read it is your problem, the rule was clarified. Here's what happened: IA showed me the report, i asked something along the lines "so they're just jokes?" which they replied yes. I said "this doesnt break our conduct policy." We moved on and that was it. It's a non-issue that im not sure why you're still caught up on. Ok cool, but that still doesn't fix any of the problems that I actually discussed in the main post, IA still has the problems of: • Not having good communication with the rest of the server or even the person reporting • Glossing over things, and trying to deal with things quickly rather than dealing with the actual evidence and looking into things (and this even further exemplifies this because if that truly is the case then you missed the whole point of the thread, some of those bans weren't just jokes, and were borderline abuse. I called attention to those in the readme i sent IA, however i guess they never discussed that stuff with you.) • IA in it of it self is supposed to be unbiased however at the moment, one of the members of IA isn't even staff, and one almost was removed from admin, so why should they still be on the team that was removing them. all of which just shows negligence and laziness on the part of the IA team, they need to have a serious reworking and i'm honestly surprised this hasn't come to anyone elses attention yet
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 8, 2020 1:35:22 GMT
one of the members of IA isn't even staff I'm not a member of IA. I am one of a few viewers who watch for corruption (again, of which I have seen none). There is no member of IA who is not staff.
|
|
|
Post by DragonSlayer2189 on Jul 8, 2020 1:38:56 GMT
one of the members of IA isn't even staff I'm not a member of IA. I am one of a few viewers who watch for corruption. There is no member of IA who is not staff. i know your not a member of IA look at this post totalfreedom.boards.net/thread/66491/administrator-report and look at the 3rd person on that list, they are not staff, and were removed for inactivity, their last thread that they made was their reinstatement on april 12th, and their last post was on april 25th
|
|