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

lmao i just fuck around with you, thought you were smart enough to realize Im fucking joking, guess not

 

Isn't this a requirement as the only staff member on the server? Last I remember staff members shouldn't ignore reports. And its not like there was a server workload to preclude them from doing so. If he had done so this edge case would still be a quiet unnoticed edge case since I doubt it would've escalated to report territory. I'm trying to stay out of most of this since I've got a report covering this incident, but your quote is a little disingenuous to say that Sanchez had a right to ignore reports.

To Ryan's point, rephrase it as this? "Staff members shall move obviously AFK players after one round if, in the moderator's judgement, it is apparent that not doing so will have a detrimental impact to gameplay. This is focused at smaller population servers where AFKs have a much larger impact and risk of delay is much higher." It addresses the issue, albeit wordily. I'm sure it could be refined further. We'd still have to tie it into the existing delay protocol.

It resolves the issue (mostly), while still allowing for a measure of discretion on moving the AFK. Basically giving moderators the freedom to resolve issues like these but still giving a method of review for their admins should they be reported for moving or not moving an AFK. It should allow mods use their best judgement and let admins correct them should they err on the wrong side of the issue at one point or another.

 

The only reason one would even care about something like this is if they were on the slay-rate rankings.

 

Welp, learned my dog's officially dying, so I officially care 99% less about this, but for the sake of closure and the fact I still have about an hour before I can even interact with said dog again and I need fucking something to do, I'll reply to everything present.

1. 'Sanchez has asserted that he did not take action because there was no delay happening as a result of him being AFK'
You agree with this, despite the only reason that delay did not occur being because of Trash's RDM.
You justified your moderator's inaction with the same reason that you punished a player.
You also declared it being extremely petty, despite there being obvious and longstanding issues with AFK players and the fact mods don't F-spec them.
2. Go 'Hey, when there are two active players on the server, you can use common sense and not slay 50% of the people actually playing the game'. And maybe actually apply some common-sense and initiate the rule change so your most valuable members (People who will join a dead server to help repopulate it) aren't punished for trivial offense.
3. I made a whole suggestion about making new protocol over AFKs. It should be easy to find. Beyond that, maybe clarify that you shouldn't slay in accordance to game rule when there aren't enough people to play the game. An AFK and two people is still just two people playing the game.

As Pierogi put it: That's a failure in the rules/protocols. Which, when presented right into your face like that, is also a failure on you. Especially when you ignore/refuse to address it in any meaningful capacity when it keeps getting shoved up to you via report after report/drama, which I genuinely was trying to avoid with a QnA focused directly at you, but apparently every single one of your staff really wanted the drama.
It is impossible to moderate a game with only two people playing it, if that game needs at least three people to function. To slay in this situation is vindictive.

Nope. In fact, only two people were playing on the server, which is really the root of the problem.
It is impossible to moderate a game with only two people playing it, if that game needs at least three people to function. To slay in this situation is vindictive.

No, I really just wanted Jabba to answer me. Or get an answer by proxy from the staff. Really, that's what this was for, but y'all wanted to debate me! See, this is what pisses me off more than aaaanything. There was not a single answer offered to my question, and you're trying to pretend like you had a bunch of them. No. There just wasn't. I don't even have any way to address this other than saying 'No' and keep repeating myself, because it's all on this page. There was no answer.

The goal of moderation is to ensure good and conducive gameplay.
Sanchez did not do that.
What Sanchez did was keep a clearly AFK player around, despite it being in his power to remove said player, and instead slew the only other active player in the server.
Everything Sanchez did hurt the server. It was the worst choice.
He had three options: Ignore it, punish for it, or solve the actual issue, and he chose the only option that negatively impacted another player. That is toxic and stupid.

Internal discussion is great, but when the information we get from the lead admin himself is that 'it's petty', that doesn't fucking help much. Flush should have been spectated. Objectively, that should have happened.

TTT, as an inno, is about surviving, getting gear, finding the source of the threat, and eliminating the threat.
When there is only 1 other active player, there is only 1 possible threat.
How does it not promote bad gameplay?
Sanchez had three options:
Ignore it all, and play around
F-Spec Flush
Punish

Trash also had three options:
Wait forever.
Wait until Sanchez did something
Play around.
The option to actually play TTT isn't even available, because there is only two people playing the game. Moderation is about maintaining good and conducive gameplay. You don't have a game of TTT with just two people. There is nothing to moderate- Any attempt to do so is just vindictive.

And your perspective on F-specing is not only outdated, but it's absolute garbage. You can look at my suggestion for all the reasons why, but Flush especially is notorious for being AFK, and being AFK is worse than RDMing in terms of game-disruption, objectively.

Again: Moderation is about maintaining good and conducive gameplay. You clearly don't give a shit about gameplay, you just want the rules to be followed to the letter. bad rules, and this is a shitty, malicious fucking ruling, drive players away. Your only justification for any of this is that it's within the rules. That doesn't make it any less toxic or less shitty.

And fuck off with that nonsense about staff not being part of the playerbase. That's even more bullshit than the rest. When there are two people playing on the server, staff should absolutely fucking suck it up and not slay over vindictive and petty bullshit, yeah, but stops the moment a third person joins. Obviously.

It is impossible to moderate a game with only two people playing it, if that game needs at least three people to function. To slay in this situation is vindictive.

Gameplay/Actions that are within the rules/accepted parameters, but are not conducive to game itself.
Toxic examples include
-Substituting slurs with other words to bypass chat restrictions
-Baiting someone into damaging you so you can report them and get them slain/banned
-Barrel Bashing indiscriminately
-Slaying someone repetitively for the same offense (Without explaining to them what they're doing wrong, or linking the rules- Not really applicable to this server)
-Baiting someone into a tantrum/similar discourteous behavior.

It is impossible to moderate a game with only two people playing it, if that game needs at least three people to function. To slay in this situation is vindictive.

Your conclusion was shit.

'But issues can also arise when a Mod is trying to repop the server and gets RDMed every round, noone likes to be blatantly RDMed, no matter how low the pop is and it might even discourage any attempts at popping the server, which is counterproductive towards what the staffmember joined for in the first place.'
There were two players in the game. If your moderator is discouraged that he has 1 active player when trying to repopulate the server who is rearing and ready to play, you need a new moderator.
This is what really makes me laugh about the whole situation. That you would take the ONE player that is willing to join a dead server and punish them because they were fucking around while there was nothing else to do.
You can't play TTT with two people.
'Ori didnt handle the situation incorrectly, he even seeked an admin to make sure that he wasnt in the wrong for slaying over this.'
Whatever admin gave him permission and didn't just say 'Hey no there is only two people playing the game' was an asshole in this situation.
And I know you say that he couldn't get ahold of an admin in time, but you go on to say this
'this was not a situation where discretion to not slay would be needed'
Fuck that.

It is impossible to moderate a game with only two people playing it, if that game needs at least three people to function. To slay in this situation is vindictive.

 

I am genuinely amazed that you have the time and energy to write a post that is longer than my University Philosophy Essay about an interaction that spanned approximately 5 minutes

 

Why so much hate towards Jabba????? I think he is 1 of the best lead admins of all time!

 

bro i just came here to play video games the hell is going on

 

nepotism this nepotism that
idk what the fuck that word means but rdm is rdm, people get slain for 1dmg so SO BE IT

 

Trouble in Terrorist Town (TTT) is a multiplayer gamemode included with Garry’s Mod. Set in a parody of the Counter-Strike universe, the game is about a group of “terrorists” who have traitors among them, out to kill everyone who’s not a traitor.

 

As the game came out in 2010, is it time to rename the 'home' team faction away from "terrorists"? The name could be found offensive on multiple accounts. One being after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Another is that everyday America grows more and more racist, and subliminal messaging like this within games, games for kids, can create hard rooted associations and hatred for groups of people. Terrorist can be used as a racial slur, and this game has likely done nothing but increase that. There is more reasons now than ever that we should put aside the old ways of hatred and change the name of the game. Too many people have been hurt. I propose we change the name "terrorist" to something more unique/wholesome, something with a team with no terror/race connections. I think if we started to use a word such as "crewmate" instead, as a replacement for "terrorist" this gamemode will stop dying. Lets be honest - the main reason people don't play TTT is because its racist. I propose we change our gamemode to the name "Bad Crewmates Around Us" and i can promise this will give us 10 times the players.

 

at this point... E = mc2.

Jokes aside, why is this still going on? I thought this was all over and done with..

 

I only joined after the reports had been filed. One or two was from the previous map

 

I mean to be fair, if this was your argument than I would be inclined to agree. He should have dealt with his own report, but if another staff member is there to handle it than that is obviously preferred, and in this case he got someone to come on and do the report

Finally, I just want to say that you are approaching this incorrectly. You believe that Sanchez did something wrong because he made a choice to slay someone else instead of fspecing the afk player, when in reality sanchez didn't slay anyone, Ori did. Additionally, you are approaching this from the perspective that the moderators on at the time had a choice in their actions when they did not. They were bound by protocol. Even if they wanted to not slay, even if they wanted to fspec, they could not. They acted as they should have because they are not admins, they have no discretion, and all they can do is handle the situation in the way that they were taught.

Now let me show you my perspective, and this is going to trigger you and i'm sorry, but this is the final truth:

In all of my years playing TTT never before have I seen so many people get so fired up over what amounts to nothing. So many issues on the servers, and we choose to spend hours over what is essentially 3 slays against a person on a 3 person server. Not only is blood in the water, but the people who are being targeted the most are good moderators who don't deserve this honestly, and I think it is damn shameful.

 

This more than anything shows a problem with fundamental rules than any moderator. This report WILL result in discussion about changing the fspec rule. Things happened, a mistake was made, maybe the situation could have been dealt with differently. But now we all know how to better handle these reports in the future. Trash's report although invalid, is still important and is still going to spark staff discussion about our AFK rule.

As it goes for slaying on a 3 person server, I'm not going to deny it could be considered petty. Maybe a quick chat message would have been sufficient. But to fundamentally answer the question, RDM is RDM. If a report comes in, we're supposed to handle it. Seeking admin discretion for A. A player known for RDM B. A three person server and C. When I couldn't get an admin to answer my first question in the first place just doesn't make sense and again, only resulted in slays in rounds that only lasted around 30 seconds.

Things could have gone better, yes. But with the rare circumstances and how the rules are written now, I don't see how this is hurting the server.

 

That was... a fucking lot to read, but can we all agree that everyone has made reasonable points, and stuff just takes time to talk about and work on (among everything else going on at the same time?) It's just TTT peeps, waffle-o

Spoiler: Side note

No more red text, that was straining as hell to get through-