admins are cuckadoodledoos and locked me out of qna

Questions:
1 - Did Nuno have admin discretion to warn?
Context: on first read that seemed to be what Lordy was saying in the Q&A (<link>), but I have some vague memory about mods having been given discretion to warn for sprays that were borderline without having to ask admins... not sure if I'm remembering right or if it's still the case though.

1.a - If Nuno did have admin discretion, should it have influenced Aegis decision to not unban? It sorta seems like he wasn't informed at all even after the appeal if there really was admin discretion.

Other:
I don't actually have enough info to want to give my opinion on what Aegis should have done, I just think the Q&A wasn't answered properly because the situation isn't explained properly. And as an opinion-y opinion: @Aegis maybe you shouldn't answer to Q&A's by starting with a question that can only bait people into a discussion... q&a's aren't for discussions.

edit: words

 

you make a lot of good points. If Nuno didn’t have admin discretion, he would be stepping out of his boundaries as a mod to issue a warning to change the spray which is a whole problem in itself. That also brings up the fact that Nuno should be documenting something like a warning in the dudes notes, which If he isn’t would be another issue. If Nuno did document the warning in the notes like he should, then aegis should see that a warning was already given to the dude when going to ban, which brings up the question if aegis is just blindly banning him without paying attention to his stats. On top of that, if Nuno had discretion, then why would the admin who gave that discretion not step in on the appeal or whatever and mend the situation themselves? There seem to be a lot of issues with how this is going that should be looked at because this whole situation seems to be dealt with pretty poorly. @Pacifist needs to take a look at this and clear stuff up because this is not how the team should be operating.

 

We also need to deal with Aegis's literal black and white coloring. Rules do not exist in a vacuum.

The player was warned. The player complied. Discretion or not, approved or not, this should affect the decision to ban or keep banned. The player literally did what the mod told them to do without (?) any real fight. From my understanding no one complained about the spray. So there was no major damage or inconvenience. This ban is literally following black and white rules in a vacuum because Aegis felt like banning the player because (paraphrased from intent) "the player should know better."

God help SGM is Aegis ever makes admin and is expected to hand out discretion in a reasonable manner. In my opinion, they've proven that they aren't up to the task.

 

honestly idek what the majority of this post is about, and talked to me in sb about something i couldn't quite recall
but why is my pfp such a big deal when it's just a fake depiction of an indiana jones character melting and the creator of the melting face was quite proud of it. i really liked the pfp and i've been using the pfp since 2013 or so on steam. it's not like no one is going to puke or have nightmares of my pfp
but if you want to go on about gore then there are better images that can really break the rule of no gore. it depends on what said gore pfp because if it's a decent pic and only 1 person is going to talk about it then why make a big deal over my pfp?

 

the man who saved SGM said it best.

 

Apparently posting a gif of a guy smoking 20 cigarettes at once is worthy of gore, because I got warned for that once.

 

Nah, the more black and white rules, the better! You wouldn’t like it if there were more discretion!! Black and white rules are the only way to stay consistent!!! God forbid we use our brains!!!!

 

Scary pictures? Those are No-No's, we have children on the server.

But at 0:33 is ok for children?

 

i still think it's pretty low iq to have one mild gore clearly artistic thing approved and one not. Consistency is key with these things, and I'm finding this very inconsistent.

 

Alright I stayed away from this for a little way, mostly because I'm trying to work out a bunch of IRL stuff. However, I just want to give my thoughts on this. First of all there was miscommunication between Nuno and Aegis on the server. I can understand this happening as sometimes you aren't paying attention to discord or maybe Nuno didn't think to tell Aegis at the time. I get it. They are new moderators and that shouldn't be held against them. I would say that their admins should have a conversation with them about teamwork when staffing with other staff members.

What I want to talk about is something that wasn't brought up too terribly often and that is admin discretion. What moderators need to understand, and what admins need to realize as well, is that their discretion trumps any and all punishments. If an admin wants them to be warned... and they get banned... we have a problem. Aegis should have unbanned the guy the second he learned about the admin discretion being used to warn the guy. Irregardless of whether the spray was gore or not, this should have been the first thing the admin who gave the discretion should have done. I believe that powerpoint complied with the warning, has no interest in repeating the same offense, and that he should be unbanned.

Now onto the protocol itself. I am sorry, but I can't compromise on gore sprays. While artistic representations can be argued, real gore and fictional gore toe the line between black and white at times. I would much rather moderators and admins come at the situation with sensibilities of wanting to protect individuals on the servers from having to see images that would otherwise make them feel uneasy or disturbed. In cases where the artistic representation goes a bit too far in the real direction, but not enough that it could be construed as real, we should exercise caution and be more open to warning people and or leaving the sprays alone if people are not bothered. We have to leave this up to the individual interpretation because otherwise we open the door for sprays that may be problematic. It is better, in my opinion, to ban for these sprays quickly and effectively, and then argue in the appeal whether or not the spray was actually considered to be porn/gore.

I believe that steps need to be taken to ensure that admins are constantly monitoring appeals to ensure that players are not being slighted by moderators who take the approach of "all that is in the rules is enforced to the extremes I deem necessary" and to recognize that appeals are the perfect place for players to learn from their mistakes, explain their situation, and ask to be unbanned respectfully. That is what powerpoint did. He acknowledged his flaw, mentioned that he was already punished, and then asked to be unbanned. I understand why Aegis didn't unban him, but I don't necessarily agree.

I think that there is an argument that our gore rules are a little vague. They should be updated to be more specific.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

we did it boys aegis has officially been corrected and a thread titled
“admins are cuckadoodledoos and locked me out of qna“ made a difference. I’m so proud of this community

 

shitposts = actual change in community

 

I mean, after over dozens of similiar threads made by disgrunted former staff, one was bound to go through.

 

Let's riot

 

yeah def not defending my valid kill arguing all the way until a lead admin proved you wrong i mean what

 

Can I just say that you and @Falcor were incredibly shit staff back then? what the fuck is this report conclusion!?
reading that report and the appeal was an insult to my eyes

 

Inb4 lock
Some of y'all need some chill pills
I'm selling some for good prices, hmu