Why the Administration's approach is flawed and unhealthy

This is a direct response to the on-going report investigation against @PixeL found here:
https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/report-against-pixel.51836/#post-545400

And the closed ban appeal from @nilz found here:
https://www.seriousgmod.com/threads/nilzs-appeal.51835/

First and foremost I'd like to state that by making a thread like this it is my wish to promote beneficial development for the community as a whole, and that I also understand both Pixel and Teroxa have been preoccupied with IRL responsibilities that might inhibit them from providing fully detailed explanations. However, with the recent revision of the Extended Rules done by MangoTango it is in the best interest of all us that when punishments like Toxic Gameplay, and it's similar partner punishments, are given out and then appealed that they should be detailed in long-form and have all adequate evidence to display that it is in fact what the apeallee deserves. Otherwise these gray area discretionary punishments will further evolve into a breeding ground for abuse and acceptance of that abuse; Which can quite honestly only be described as a languishing approach to staffing and community management. There needs to be a solid foundation within the reports and appeal system that expects the staff-members managing them to provide accurate proof of the crime committed. In Nilz's case, there is a significant lack thereof.

Thankfully Pixel can also understand that Heli calling the KOS in this scenario puts Heli in the wrong and potentially warrants a slay if Nilz died because of the KOS. Him mentioning, however, that "Some players may in fact kiill for this suspicion though[...]" is mis-leading and is not how this situation should be interpreted by a staff-member at all. The focus should not be on the what if's and instead on the what's and how's. Otherwise this would be a direct statement from the Administration that it is okay to punish players for things they might do and not what they have actually done. Further-more he goes on to say "there was another piece of evidence of nilz saying someone else shot him", yet I can't quite see the necessity of mentioning this because not only was the proof not displayed for us to see, but he then goes on to counter it himself by stating "Again, not kosable or anything but[...]" which leads you to believe he's almost suggesting to you that something was wrong but he can't quite tell what it is. This suggestive approach is not what what we'd want from the people who have the power to potentially end a player's time here on a whim.

No, it actually can't count because it doesn't state so here:

Unless he's going off the rails here and using the label of Toxic Gameplay but using pure Admin discretion to twist Nilz's case into something that could now be punished then that'd be another story. However, he made no such claim to having used discretion and instead implies that he is citing the rules directly.

Players will always express concerns if they interrupt their own agendas. As the Administration, you should be focusing on what interrupts the community's agenda and not just a vocal minority. To emphasize this part because it's what bothers me the most- it just doesn't sit right with me that Pixel claims to have talked to the other Admins and they all concluded that it was okay to ban for "thin to none." They're going off a whim and stating it's okay to not have evidence if it's one of the discretionary punishments because they do in fact possess the ability to use discretion. I'm sure I don't need to explain how unhealthy that mind-set is for the community.

If there is something you are not okay with a player doing then express it through your work and revise the rules to reflect it. Don't approach this situation half-heartedly and disrespect your community player's time. They deserve to know why they're being punished and how to improve for the future. If you're not interested in keeping players then keep going down the route that you are, but please don't pretend you care about the community if you're willing to build it upon sacrifices along the way. The way Nilz's plays is unfavorable, sure, and that is definitely a valid argument, but if you attempt to express that you don't want him and other players playing like that then do so by updating your rules, accurately posting examples and points to their appeals and reports, and provide the time to explain what is and is not okay.

 

I agree absolutely.

 

This is amazing!

 

This,

and this

Rated you winner.

 

I'll throw my reply in here.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

As for my responses, I have been meaning to get better on that aspect.
I tend to go off and further explain things and add useless information to try and get my point across when in reality it really doesn't help or even adds negatively to the response.
Maybe it's just how my head works, but I've definitely been working on it.

Whatever Teroxa decides to end the report on, I can say that this is a good learning experience for at least me.

 

I know very little about the situation. I didn't bother reading the report or the appeal because it does not really involve me in any meaningful way. That being said, there is a bit of warped perception when talking about what is best for the community. In the eyes of the administration the goal is to make the community better by weeding out all annoyances (no matter how big or how small). The community does not see these people as annoyances. Hell, most of you would probably speak highly of nilz. That is the difference between those who have to follow the rules and those who have to enforce them. I think given as much time as Pixel has had, his definition of what is and isn't toxic becomes so far skewed that you can no longer objectively base your concerns.

I agree with the general sentiment of the thread, though I believe you are being a bit dramatic. Pixel could have given a better rational, but I doubt this decision seriously plunges SGM into the dirt. Admins use to be way more strict and ruthless towards toxicity. Nowadays you get a little ban here and there. Were it up to me? I'd like to see a massive shit pile of evidence be presented in an orderly fashion to justify a long and drawn out ban. That is just me though of course, maybe you disagree with me but I think that is only because there is such a disconnect between the staff team and the players. Our perception doesn't always align.

I love you anyways baby

EDIT: That feeling when you agree with the thread but still get shit on in the ratings. damn.

 

what administration?

 

I swear I read some parts of your post incorrectly.

 

mods are gay

 

Just like your profile picture

 

god my dick gets so hard when i see ex-staff completely shitting on the new staff

its get me so fucking torqued like the time i accidentally took addy after xans and just completely fucking myself up oh eyah ba b Y

love you popstar keep doing gods work for us plebeians

 

Nice seeing Popstar still on these forums from the time I vaguely remember him as a mod that did their job well.

What I want my 2cents in this conversation to be is the extended rules going from essays on every subject to simple ass bullet points. The biggest problem I have with this is the "Staff Discretion" section and how staff have absolutely all say in who gets banned for whatever reason they will be banned for. This goes without (usually) giving the person getting banned anything to refute their ban with, I understand staff should have a higher credibility standpoint on these kinds of things but it means some mods can easily abuse their banning capabilities. Only time offenders can say anything is when they appeal for a ban, in which mods might not even have evidence for such stated ban and then it goes under admin discretion if need be, further fucking the opinion rather than having evidence/validity take over. Don't want to name some specific moderators, but some have actively wanted to ban others for simple reasons and extended the period for seemingly no other reason than to get rid of them for a longer duration.

From this, I see the extended rules as somewhat of a guide/agenda for moderators to follow. When a certain mod was going against a specific rule in the extended rules, you could have simply pointed it out as the extended rules were multiple MULTIPLE pages long. Now you can't really do that as "Staff Discretion" is a sort of gray area for moderators.

Of course this is all my opinion and I don't do a very good job at articulating what I feel at the moment sometimes versus what I feel overall.
Don't know if I'm complaining, explaining, or even helping this article as someone will just say my opinion is dumb without proper rebuttals. That shit really ticks me off. . .

 

I apologize if my post caused any confusion, but I am not debating what Toxic Gameplay is nor am I stating that Nilz might've potentially not committed Toxic Gameplay because it is a discretionary punishment and is left up to the Admins to exercise their discretion. But rather this thread is exactly as I titled it and focuses on why the approach regarding Nilz's case is flawed and poses a serious threat in dropping the necessity of rule know how and execution. To better phrase it there was a punishment given out yet the evidence presented did not meet the expected standards one might assume would be necessary in a case like this- especially with a punishment so severe, nor was there any mention of discretion being used to alter the qualifications of the alleged rule break.

It's about the approach taken and is not focused on the details of what Nilz might've done. Also to note, you don't simply get banned for having a history out of the blue. If you have a history and are just playing normally and get banned for your history that just wouldn't make sense. You'd need to commit another offense for that history be acted upon, so you can see why in this case it's questionable to cite history yet the evidence for the supposed trigger offense is lacking. I just don't see why he'd be banned and have the explanation be that it was a general "feeling" they were going off of.

I apologize if a detailed explanation of my perspective on the situation comes off as dramatic, but I assure you this is actually a normal thing to do when you have concerns and want to express them. Also, nothing in my OP states directly or even remotely references that SGM is plunging into the dirt. That's a baseless statement and is being used as a highlight statement to instill an urgency of trepidation in the reader. Also stating that "Admins use to be way more strict and ruthless towards toxicity" does not excuse anything, nor is it based on any relevant facts. There were some strict staff-members, but going off your understanding of strict it almost appears as though you classify 'strict' as those who expressed professionalism at a minimum level, those who weren't socially accepting of you, or even perhaps those that were just doing their jobs. I won't defend those cases of which I do not know, however there really is no need to mention any supporting claims you've made except from your thesis which is "I know very little about the situation."

Thank you for the compliment but most staff members do their job well, otherwise they probably wouldn't be staff for very long. If you're referring to communication and social skills then that's another subject. However, in regards to some appeals and bans you've witnessed not being supplemented with the adequate amount of evidence then that would be relevant to this post. Even then, this is more-so focusing on a specific case(the active investigation against Pixel) and not the general approach of all staff-members. I understand I referenced the potential risk of this becoming a trend, but the focus was more-so on this case and this case alone. If you feel there isn't an adequate amount of evidence on future cases then I'm sure messaging available admins will help ease your concerns.

Thank you and please don't sweat it. I worked with you for some time and I've always known that you're a capable staff-member. I just didn't want to see a slip-up like this that could be reverted with a simply apology. I do hope that no one takes this as a direct attack on you, or even the other admins and staff-members, but I felt the need to speak up on something could potentially be dangerous to become a habit. I do hope that Teroxa doesn't do anything rash like punishing you, and also comes to the conclusion that you understand this wasn't the best approach to this specific case and that Nilz should not be banned without at the very least having some evidence being presented to him that proves his guilt.

 

Careful there, because I don't think I can fully agree with this. I don't suggest some Minority Report-type shit where we just punish players for something they haven't done yet, but in this case, something was done and the effects that were most likely expected from nilz just didn't happen. If I say "POP STAR just shot an innocent", then that technically isn't a KOS according to the rules, but just look at the sentence that's being said: Pragmatically speaking, it basically is a KOS, and somebody who actually thinks for themselves instead of knowing the rules by heart could shoot you for it.
By saying that the guy shot someone, nilz was aware that this could lead to the person's death, which is why he said it. It's just like all the "He is a Tractor!" shit that intentionally tries to make people misread it as "Traitor" and follow the KOS.

So yeah, the punishable offense is something that happened; not something that "might" have happened. It's just that its intended effects didn't happen, but that shouldn't really matter. When somebody tries to shoot someone else in the head three times and barely misses, we can still kill that person for acting traitorously without having to wait for the actual thing that we're trying to prevent to happen.

People are arrested for attempted murder in real life. You wouldn't really say "Wow, the police is arresting people for what they might do!" in those cases, either. The almost-murderer tried to kill someone and failed. nilz tried to get someone shot with an almost-KOS and failed. There is no other reason why nilz would even tell such a lie in the first place.

However, if that one video is all the proof that the admins got, then it was a shitty ban. Even if those videos do exist, it is still bad that they didn't present them.

This is where the truly crappy argument lies. Excuse me, that's what we are worried about? That everyone follows the unID'd body around like moths flying towards a lamp? Are we assuming that players are just brainless zombies that would cartoonishly fall into lava just to get closer to an unID'd body? Please, someone explain this because I must have misunderstood something here. It just seems so stupid.

Agree with what?

Agree with the fact that there wasn't enough proof posted? Well, then post the proof! Unless you don't have it, meaning that you should unban the guy.

Agree with the fact that the ban was not justified? So have you unbanned him then? As far as I can remember, when you ban someone and they write an appeal that you actually agree with, there is nothing stopping you from unbanning them. It's 100% your choice - whether you're a mod or an admin. Without actually taking back what you did, your post just seems like a diplomatic move to seem more likable.

 

Actually I was referring to strict as having given out longer bans with much more evidence. I don't think there has ever been a time where admins or moderators have adhered to strict professionalism, and if there was it didn't last for very long. Only as far back as I remember of course. I think you are hung up on the whole dramatic thing as well, I didn't really mean it to be a core of my argument but you seem to think it was? I suppose if I can't speak in general than i'll have to get specific. Let me go read the damn posts really fast.


=== r e a d i n g ===

Ok so I got some hot takes that I think may actually be some use to your thread here. Let me lay them out really quickly. Toxic Game play, at least as long as I have been here, has always been a catch all ban given to players who commit malicious game play that has the intention of causing harm to other players or the server itself. This is the definition i'll run with when I break this down.

1. The first instance with the KOS is a hard one to put my finger on. In the old rule set you weren't kosed if the other person merely implicated you in a traitorous act. The problem is that the current extended rules make no such clarification. One would assume that the rules haven't changed, but if they have than there really is no correct answer. Let us say that the old rules still very much apply, in this case Nilz has only implicated Heli in a traitorous act. He has not yet kosed him. It wasn't until Heli called a kos on Nilz that Nilz felt the need to respond with force. Now, he could have done this because he knew that Heli would take the bait, but that is just smart thinking on Nilz part. T baiting is not against the rules so far as I am aware, and so this kill is perfectly valid. So the real question becomes, is this malicious? Well, Nilz motives are not clear here. He could either be trying to bait Heli into calling a kos, or he could just be giving off a little bit of banter. I am not so sure if any of these are antithetical to the way the game is suppose to be played, after all, lying and accusing people of things is what the game is about at its core. There is suppose to be some suspicion or doubt on whether someone is or isn't a traitor.

EDIT: Also, Dani brings up a fantastic point here that I didn't consider. This is why I always thought it best to just say that implications of traitorous acts were koses. That is just me though.

2. The second instance could be argued more effectively on pixel's part. Nilz's main intention was to hold the body up and use it to make other players guilty of a traitorous act. So we have intention there, but do we have an actual malicious act? Well i'd say that you don't, at least not one that is deserving of such a long ban. A warning perhaps? The reason I don't think this is malicious is because Nilz never tries to act on the traitorous act he has implicated the player into. The player is not killed by the detective. For this to be toxic game play of any significance, the player would have to be killed by either the detective or by Nilz. Someone needs to act on the traitorous act that Nilz has provided. Is Nilz completely innocent here? Not at all. He has still provided a traitorous act that the player could have been killed for, of course, this isn't ban worthy at all. I'd have just monitored him and would have warned if he had kept that kind of behavior up.


3. The third thing I want to bring up is the history of the player in question. Nilz has a history. However, at what degree should that history skew our punishment scale to the extreme? I would argue that his history can definitely be used against him in any and all punishments he receives. He is at a position where he knows the rules and understands when he is breaking them. Feigning ignorance can only get you so far. So yes, his punishments should reflect his long history, but only at a point that you can justify the continuation of his ban. History can only ever account for a third of your rationale, and that third only plays into the how long. You should never feel justified to ban someone simply because their ban list is on the longer side. I think we get caught into these little traps of identifying certain players as being toxic edge lords that should be banned on the slightest provocation. This isn't without its reasons, but they relate to the nature of some of our biggest problem children.

To summarize and put really briefly, Nilz probably at most only deserved a one week ban. If even that. To be completely honest, I believe that the administration is grasping for straws here. Just my opinion though, which is covered in cyan paint.

 

I think so too. It just seems intuitive to me:

P1: When Pacifist says "Dani is a Traitor!", we are allowed to trust him blindly and kill Dani.
P2: When Dani shoots an innocent, we are allowed to kill Dani.

The way I see it, it should then follow that

C: When Pacifist says that Dani shot an innocent, we are allowed to trust him blindly and kill Dani.

Some people told me that this idea is problematic because it might lead to people just saying that someone killed someone else in casual conversation, and then someone else sees that as a reason to kill, although I personally don't even see a problem with that. So what if the people mentioning that he killed someone were just mentioning it casually? If it was the truth, the killer still deserves to die, right? If we wanna somehow add the tone of how people say it or the intent behind it into the equation, it becomes a bit of a vague and subjective slippery slope. I'm not really sure about it; maybe it could be done if someone found a good way to word the rules.

And this is the big problem here. The two offenses themselves aren't even bad enough on their own. They didn't lead to anyone dying and if they had, they should have just been punished with slays proportionate to the number of deaths they caused.
The way it is now is just...nilz was banned for his history. Not these offenses PLUS his history. Just his history. He was basically punished twice for something he only did once.

 

The old version of the extended rules was way better anyway. There was literally no fucking way you could lawyer your way out of it because of the sheer amount of detail it contained. It was, quite literally, a masterpiece.