How does Jabba's decision help the server instead of hurting it?

Honestly @Jabba the Slut , why are you enforcing policy where it's better to slay someone than F-spec the AFK?

That's toxic as all hell. It doesn't matter if it's in the rules. How the hell does this possibly promote good, decent gameplay? It breaks the very spirit of TTT, let alone our entire ruleset. It is impossible to have a match of TTT with just two people. Adding in a third AFK player does not change that. It just means that now technically an innocent shooting first is considered RDM.

The goal of slaying someone is to protect the playerbase. If your enforcement of the rules slays 50% of active players, then either something is going horribly horribly wrong with that playerbase, or something is wrong with the enforcement of rules. Absolutely nobody benefits from Trash being slain. Sanchez did not have his TTT experience interrupted when Trash RDMd him because there was no TTT experience. At best, a member of this community who is willing to wait around and fill in the playercount while the server repopulates is slain unnecessarily. At worst, we lose community member whom is actively making the server better for everyone by taking the first steps to making the server actually playable for us all.


Going to tag @Lordyhgm to see if they can maybe answer this too, because frankly, your silence just comes off as nepotism, and we all know that Highwon doesn't want to be involved and will probably just take your word for it without looking too closely.

Just please. Tell us why or how your decision benefits the server in any way, instead of hurting it. Honestly, I'll take anyone's answer, because I just don't see it.

 

What a shitty take that completely ignores the entire issue.
Yes or no:
If there are only two people playing on the server, should either of them ever be slain for RDM over killing each other?

Nepotism is the worst thing a community can have. Take a step back, and tell me why this should have ever happened instead of stupid 'gatcha' moments that don't address any of the problem. If you can't, then maybe consider the fact that this entire issue is a failure on the part of the moderation team, and instead of taking it out on the players and long-time supporters of the community- or just ignoring them- you resolve it.

Basically: Answer the question. How does this help the server? How does it not objectively harm it? You are technically within the rules, but so it bringing an unid'd body and placing it at someone's feet so you can kill them for not ID'ing a body if they don't notice it. But that's toxic as fuck, and probably loopholing. Just like this. The difference being that you guys are staff, and you shouldn't be trying this hard to not defend the indefensible, but just ignore it.

Pride is a difficult thing to overcome, but this is a Gmod community. You'll find a lot more pride in maintaining an enjoyable experience that anyone can log on and have fun with years after the game started its decline instead of just coveting power and the sense of being right. Again, if I am wrong or missed something, then explain why this ruling was a good one, but don't feed me or us the community this cancerous bullshit.

 

I'm a bit unsure on what exactly you're mad about. If you disagree with the slays being added, that part of the report was handled by me and @Voca. Jabba only handled the claims that Sanchez was wrong not putting h3ll into fspec.

 

Because he is lead admin, and none of the staff are capable of answering the question.
The leads actually refuse to address the issue, adamantly.
But everyone beneath the leads just dodges around the question and refuses to give a straight answer. They give tertiary answers, answers that touch on the technical aspects of the issue that we all already know are well and correct, but nobody is willing to actually address the problem. It's nepotism at its finest.
Why isn't this a report? Because you can dismiss a report without answering the question. Nobody wants you or Voca or Jabba or Sanchez to get in trouble. We, or at least just I, just want to know why this is the decision that was made. How it in any way benefits the server, and isn't just toxic loopholing to keep a mod from being in the wrong.

 

Question: Can you please justify your decision?

Answer: We can't.

Edit: I have stated multiple times that rules weren't technically broken. It's just that the way they were applied was incredibly toxic. I just want to know how the staff justify their decision. I want to know why the rules were applied in this way. The reports have already been had and done, and the staff apparently stand by the decision of slaying someone for RDM when there were only two active players.
Why. Why
Why why why.
That is what this question is for.
Why.
How does this benefit the server.
How is this not flagrant nepotism? I might not even be using that word correctly, but you're smart enough to know what I mean.
Why?

 

Which is why I want Jabba/Lordy to justify their decisions, and why I'm not making a report.
Sanchez didn't follow protocol by the way, which is part of the issue, though his involvement is really incredibly small compared to the absolutely atrocious judgement demonstrated in those reports, or rather the completely lackluster way in which they addressed any actual issues at hand.
I don't want people to get in trouble. I want to know why.

You'll notice that I'm not saying that the rules were breached. I'm saying that the way this situation was handled, from start to finish, was toxic and unfair and entirely self-serving to the staffing team. And I want to know how the lead admins, the people who are supposed to keep this sort of stuff from happening, are justifying it. Because Jabba, when addressing this issue, didn't even give consideration to the fact the rules might be wrong/in need of changing. He went into the entirely opposite direction, and called the situation petty. So why. Why is this acceptable? Why is this the standard? *Why*?

Like, this is the way I expect politicians or police to handle a situation. Sliding about the actual problem and worming their way out of any clear answer with their jobs on the line if people actually discover the truth. This is a gaming community where the goal is to have fun. Jabba's decision directly counters that fun. It has no positive bearing for anyone involved, not even the mods. It is just not conducive to good or player friendly gameplay. If it's not nepotism to keep a member of staff from being in the wrong, then why?

So why is this the stance that the lead admins have taken? How does it promote good gameplay within our server? Why?
*Why*

 

This thread has been moved to ttt discussion. I have mentioned this before, but the QNA subforum is not designed for these kinds of threads. Generally, the QNA is designed to answer questions regarding the rules, or questions regarding the community itself. It is not designed to question staff members on certain actions or to facilitate debate (as the QNA subforum is moderated). I have moved this to ttt discussion as it is clear you wish to debate the topic you pitched in the original post, and will take any responses. The thread should also be opened up to community involvement.

I will respond later once I have time to read this.

 

So basically, the staff so absolutely refuse to answer the question, to the point of hiding it as a question.
Great.

I'm not the one debating this question. You all are. I have consistently been asking 'why', it has been my only focus, and it is entirely regarding both rules and the community.

I will not take any response. This is not meant to be a debate. Stop making it a debate, you shady-ass peeps. What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

@Juice Juice™

 

I feel like this can all be summed up with RDM is the killing of a person without sufficient evidence, being afk is not evidence so you can't kill for it. And why would you fspec someone who has not yet caused delay because they were the last on their team alive. Trash could've just asked to get him fspecced.

 

I'm literally asking why the proper outcome of a situation where there are two active players is for someone to be slain
How is that is not toxic gameplay
And you are framing it as anything else.

Link me, anywhere, where any semblance of an answer to my question was given.

Why. Was this. The outcome.
Why is this outcome supported by the staffing team.
Why.

I'm not telling you to agree with me. I'm telling you to answer my question, instead of this incredible and obnoxious workaround.

 

Okay, first of all, calm down. I didn't turn this into a debate, you did. We gave you answers, you rejected those answers. Additionally, nothing is wrong with me. I haven't gone and made it my mission to have an entire staff team try to justify to me why one person was slain. Yet, you want a detailed explanation of my thoughts, don't you?

Well, let's break this down from the beginning. Trash, Flush and Sanchez are playing the game, Flush is afk. Trash is rdming whoever he sees first, and his excuse is that there is a low population on the servers. As we both know, the rules do not become negated when there is a low population, so those slays were 100% justifiable in my book. You could argue that discretion could have been fetched, but Sanchez, nor Ori, are admins and are under no obligation to get such discretion. Additionally, Trash has a reputation of rdming, and said discretion would have likely been denied on account of him doing it purposefully and with no regard to the rules. I see no problem with this at all. I have actually made up my mind and concluded that I wouldn't accept any forgiveness towards Trash, as he has purposefully rdmed every single session I have played with him. I tried playing nice, but nice just bit my hand. As far as handling the reports, ori handled them on behalf of Sanchez, meaning there was no conflict there. Hell, Sanchez could have handled his own reports if he had chosen to do so.

Now, onto the central issue: Should a moderator fspec someone in a scenario like this? Well, at the time, no. Flush had never delayed, in part because trash ended the rounds faster through RDM, but also there is no proof to say he was delaying. Moderators can only fspec someone if they are delaying, or after 3 warnings. Now, should Sanchez have done this? In my opinion, yes, he should have done more to ensure that flush was put into spectator, yet, I do not believe that the fault is on him directly. He was a new moderator around the time, and I know that we teach moderators that you should only fspec if there is clear delay, which in this case there wasn't. This whole report has actually set off a firestorm where as a staff team we are looking to change how we deal with delaying, and some players have even been warned for their behavior.

Now, let's look at this from Jabba's perspective. He is a lead admin, handling a report against a moderator. In that capacity, he is simply looking at the case from the perspective of "did sanchez do all that he could have done in that situation given his position or powers?" not "what should have been done". You have to remember that moderators don't have autonomy to make their own decisions about these kinds of situations. In that regard, these kinds of reports are more about looking to what they were suppose to do per the protocol and whether or not they followed that to a T. Were Sanchez an admin I could warm to your point that maybe the admin should have intervened and fspeced flush, as he'd have discretion to do more.

Finally, I want to make a few responses to you directly.

He's not. Where in his report responses does he ever say what ought to be and not what is? He only speaks to the idea that a moderator should follow the protocol. He isn't setting new precedent or protocol because reports aren't the place where we should ever be doing that. Instead, we make those internally or through discussion threads on the forums. Which we actually have been doing. Additionally, you make this seem as if they are part of the same issue, but they are not mutually exclusive. You can both slay trash and fspec hellaflush, and Jabba never made the claim that you couldn't, or that in the future you wouldn't be able to, only that in that moment Sanchez and Ori handled their job well per the protocol.

You are being very dramatic and hyperbolic. How does it break the ruleset? How does it promote bad gameplay? How does it break the very spirit of TTT? Trash rdmed according to our ruleset, so we slain him. Flush wasn't delaying per our ruleset so we didn't fspec him. Our protocol was not violated, so report invalid. In fact, it would be more toxic if we chose NOT to slay trash, as then we would be looking upon a player with favoritism when he is blatantly ignoring the rules of the game and mass rdming. We would also be toxic if we just randomly fspeced flush, who coulda came back and played the game at any moment. Besides, he was slain on a low pop server, those slay rounds lasted less than a minute.

This is a weird appeal to this arbitrary "playerbase". I don't give a damn if the person is a moderator, a toxic player, a good player, or any where in between. If they break the rules, they get punished. If someone gets RDMed, be they moderator, player, or whatever in between, they should be allowed to have their case not only heard, but handled. Your argument is actually so absurd because you posit that we might as well just throw the rules out in general, because every time we punish someone we run the risk of said person deciding they want to leave. Look, if trash wants to leave over a handful of slays than he can be my guest. I can't stop him. I can only ensure that players get punished for breaking the rules. Additionally, I think it is very fucked up that you have decided that staff members are not considered part of the playerbase. I guess you wouldn't have a problem if we got harassed, rdmed, or whatever. As long as we are staff, we just have to stfu and take it, right? I disagree entirely.

Finally, I just want to point out that nepotism doesn't mean what you think it means. Generally, nepotism is when you have influence and you give things to your friends and family, such as positions of power. In this case, you are just pulling shit out of your ass. I put Jabba and Lordy where they are today, and so in that sense my response is the closest thing you are going to get to nepotism.

 

Are you insinuating that staff members shouldn't use common sense and initiative and only be reactionary?

Its hellflush, and he was AFK for multiple rounds. Just because the rounds ended up being short by Trash's action doesn't mean the problem didn't exist. The fact is that it had to be resolved by fspecing Hellflush later on when the problem reared its ugly head during a repop. He should've been moved to spec after the first round. Doing so would've meant that the dozens of posts around this issue never would've occurred.