Discovery Gaming Community

Full Version: Admin Feedback Thread (Archived)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Firstly, thank you again for replying. Now in order:

(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]If this experience is from a few years ago then I can't answer for it. However, all of the mistakes that have been made have been apologised for whilst I've been an Admin. They've also been reversed, ask Impy if you need evidence.

That is good to hear, I sure hope that is truth. However I do not get why Hawk is still admin, considering all the bad feedback he got over eternity of him being as admin. Including cases where he failed and did not fixed.

(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]For a sanction to be processed, the violator needs to have actually broken a rule. All sanctions are voted on by Mods and Admins, if there is a overwhelming majority either way then it will be dealt with accordingly. It's also really fun.

That way of doing it seem a bit inefficient. I mean, needing so many people doing one simple job is kinda odd. What I would advise is allowing one admin to do the sanction, and if the violator thinks that the sanction is not fair, he can ask another admin to review the case. Then you can play a voting game, or perhaps just let other few admins to review the case. What is bad in this idea?

(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]You caught us on a good day, we bump chats to get people to give their opinions. Normally sanctions are filed two or three at a time. Or perhaps this sanction was so blatantly obvious that there was no point in asking people to spend time writing a reason.

This sanction wasn't blatantly obvious, as the arguments to my sanction were weakly based on guesses. Admins or judges should not view only one side of the conflict, don't you think? I mean, the other side of the story have just as much right to live, unless there is evidence to prove that it doesn't. No?

(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately Admins can't help you get better at PvP, sorry.

Firstly I didn't mean myself. I can survive for quite some time on any ship. Probably not do much damage on fighters to fighters... Can do damage to bombers on fighters, unless it's a duel, can damage capital ships I think perhaps even better then some dedicated snub pros. Not because I am better then them at bombers, but because I know better how capital ships and their weapons work. As for capital ships... Well, let's not raise this discussion right now, let's just say that I am average to good on any.

Back to the point, I actually meant new players. The ones that have experience with original Freelancer only. You must agree that fighter PvP is much different on Discovery then it was in original. And it's very noob unfriendly. That's the fault of ballance ofc, but ballance can not be very different with this reengagement rule spread among snubs, won't you agree?

(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]How many Sarrisa's have you seen in New York over the past year or so? I'd say there's been a few times where a lot have been there, but for the most part there hasn't been many. In response to your general point, not just OC BSs in NY, If you have any problems with the ID allowances then feel free to post in the player requests with a good reason why. We're getting on top of the lost forum work slowly, so it shouldn't take as long as it would do normally.

Many or not, I've been with the group that sees no other way of fighting off New York swarm then bringing Sarisas, and they did it like yesterday or something. And it's not only New York, and it's not only about flying capital ships everywhere you want. Those ID rules have flaws much more then that, I just gave the most obvious example. If you want to go through other flaws, I can make it my research.
Quote:That way of doing it seem a bit inefficient. I mean, needing so many people doing one simple job is kinda odd. What I would advise is allowing one admin to do the sanction, and if the violator thinks that the sanction is not fair, he can ask another admin to review the case. Then you can play a voting game, or perhaps just let other few admins to review the case. What is bad in this idea?

I'm going to try and make this as unbiased as possible since I was a mod and did vote on many reports.

In order for a sanction to go through, with the current system, the staffed required at least 3 opinions/votes to be put forward. Most sanctions would be pretty simple, yes there's enough evidence or no, there's not enough evidence to sanction this person. If something isn't clear it then is then opened for discussion, people throw their ideas back and forth until a final decision is made and an admin carries the act out. Very very rarely would a single person make the decision on their own, even if it's blindingly obvious.

Let's talk about your suggested system. We have one admin that makes a decision there and then and carries out his verdict. Nothing more, nothing less. With both systems we have positives and negatives.

One person carrying out the sanction would make the process incredibly fast however, bias opinions can easily be set in play, the admin might have missed something that is vital to the sanction and doesn't act accordingly. Said person could look like a complete cock and become targeted by the community if it happens a lot.

Multiple people voting can have things cleared up and missed things pointed out (as it has happened many times). A definitive decision is made by several people that all agree, there's little chance they'd be wrong. More accurate. On the other hand it can take its time.

Each have their ups and downs but the system that is currently in place works very well. Yes, things could be sped up but they have improved. Believe it or not the admins are very busy so having to go back over a report is time consuming and prevents them from discussing more important things.

There is a problem with transparency in this community between the staff and the community and that's probably why most people have many issues with the staff team. A lot of the things that people complain about are usually things where they don't have the full picture. There are a few things that can be improved in this area, but no system is perfect.

Believe it or not but most of the staff team work hard. It's just that it's mostly behind the scenes.
Snoopy, you've forgot to comment on the second part of the suggestion, AKA player request to review the sanction by another admin. Yes, one person verdict would open world for bias possibilities, but it doesn't always make sanction unfair, even by the understanding of a sanctioned person. So why not do it? You would issue sanctions much faster, focusing too much attention on cases that do require this attention, no?

Btw, look at your own phrasing of that message:

(11-19-2015, 11:47 PM)Snoopy Wrote: [ -> ]Believe it or not but most of the staff team work hard. It's just that it's mostly behind the scenes.

Kinda ironic. Anyway, I have no doubts that most are doing their work hard, yet it doesn't change the fact that some work is being overthought, some work is being underthought because of previous. And it's all down to the system you've described.

(11-19-2015, 11:47 PM)Snoopy Wrote: [ -> ]Multiple people voting can have things cleared up and missed things pointed out (as it has happened many times). A definitive decision is made by several people that all agree, there's little chance they'd be wrong. More accurate. On the other hand it can take its time.

If any sanction that is processed with such care, it takes your time and time of the community as well, although last is rather their ingame time then real. And I doubt that you would disagree that all the delayed sanctions have been worth of such care couldn't be just processed by one person, giving other admins time to do other things, and draging their attention only when it's necessary.
People would demand CONTROL all the time, said admin would be called a bias. Done.
(11-20-2015, 09:40 AM)Shinju Wrote: [ -> ]People would demand CONTROL all the time, said admin would be called a bias. Done.

Except they don't. I have been reading sanction notices and the furthest player demand went in lots of them was evidences.

Also, is admin feedback thread also for ex admins and moderators?
(11-19-2015, 06:31 PM)Timmy Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]For a sanction to be processed, the violator needs to have actually broken a rule. All sanctions are voted on by Mods and Admins, if there is a overwhelming majority either way then it will be dealt with accordingly. It's also really fun.

That way of doing it seem a bit inefficient. I mean, needing so many people doing one simple job is kinda odd. What I would advise is allowing one admin to do the sanction, and if the violator thinks that the sanction is not fair, he can ask another admin to review the case. Then you can play a voting game, or perhaps just let other few admins to review the case. What is bad in this idea?

(11-19-2015, 06:13 PM)Cashew Wrote: [ -> ]You caught us on a good day, we bump chats to get people to give their opinions. Normally sanctions are filed two or three at a time. Or perhaps this sanction was so blatantly obvious that there was no point in asking people to spend time writing a reason.

This sanction wasn't blatantly obvious, as the arguments to my sanction were weakly based on guesses. Admins or judges should not view only one side of the conflict, don't you think? I mean, the other side of the story have just as much right to live, unless there is evidence to prove that it doesn't. No?

Im not sure, but on the one side you complain that sanctions take too long to process, while on the other side you want to make the process even bigger by collecting more input, which will definitely take even more time. It sometimes takes a week or more to contact some people if evidence is missing in their sanction, good luck if you need their input and expect things to be fast.
Having only one person deciding on sanctions is not going to do the sanctioned person any favor, believe me when I tell you that you would not like the results. The way its working now is to offer the community a certain kind of quality control in decision making, if you had only one person making the decisions you would have more mistakes in sanctions because its sometimes just hard to see the whole picture, while on the other hand, you would be subject to the opinion of one person. While we do have standardized punishments for most cases, they still come with a certain degree of variation in harshness, so if I consider a violation to be a very bad one, I will give you for the highest punishment possible, while another Admin might think that its not really a problem and might just warn you. Having multiple people discuss this, helps to find a consensus.

And to answer your question, this is an Admin feedback thread, which also includes the Moderators considering that they are part of the staff, but I certainly wont mind if people that have an opinion post here, especially if said people have knowledge on how the system works or want to give constructive criticism.
(11-20-2015, 09:48 AM)Jansen Wrote: [ -> ]And to answer your question, this is an Admin feedback thread, which also includes the Moderators considering that they are part of the staff, but I certainly wont mind if people that have an opinion post here, especially if said people have knowledge on how the system works or want to give constructive criticism.

Fair enough, I was not against it, I just wanted to be sure that I speak with people that admins authorised to speak for them. However I do wish that posts like Jayce and Doria did were... either excluded or more useful to the case.

(11-20-2015, 09:48 AM)Jansen Wrote: [ -> ]Im not sure, but on the one side you complain that sanctions take too long to process, while on the other side you want to make the process even bigger by collecting more input, which will definitely take even more time. It sometimes takes a week or more to contact some people if evidence is missing in their sanction, good luck if you need their input and expect things to be fast.
Having only one person deciding on sanctions is not going to do the sanctioned person any favor, believe me when I tell you that you would not like the results. The way its working now is to offer the community a certain kind of quality control in decision making, if you had only one person making the decisions you would have more mistakes in sanctions because its sometimes just hard to see the whole picture, while on the other hand, you would be subject to the opinion of one person. While we do have standardized punishments for most cases, they still come with a certain degree of variation in harshness, so if I consider a violation to be a very bad one, I will give you for the highest punishment possible, while another Admin might think that its not really a problem and might just warn you. Having multiple people discuss this, helps to find a consensus.

As for this... I have several things to adress.

1) I've never been contacted by admin in my life (disco life) when I posted a sanction report. Nor have they ever been implemented. Probably changed, but still, that broken any wish to bother with these.

2) I don't quite understand how more people asking for missing evidences would make asked person login more often. Also, asking those people is quite easy - send PM. Dellay after that is not a fault of admin. Appologies if I didn't get what you mean, will be grateful if you explain in more details.

3) About punishment I have to completely disagree, because that should be standartized for ALL admins. That simply can not be a personal wish of admin. Punishments should be predetermined for any possible violation and issued as they are, without changes. I know it's a tricky thing, but it's not an unworkable thing.

4) I see a flaw in including several people into one sanction in attempt to make it perfect, as you are not quite reaching the goal all the time. I dunno how many people are working out sanctions, but if there's 3 or more, I believe sharing the cases between those would speed up the proces regardless. As for quality... It probably would be lower, but considering that you don't require perfect quality always, and you do leave a chance for mistake by allowing sanctioned person to request a review... I believe that's more fair and easy way to work it out.
If this is feedback for mods too, can I ask why the last activity thread was locked? The orange had lots of holes.
Can you be more specific? Link maybe?
Relating to the great GRN purge of Bretonia in 822 A.S. I was under the impression that POBs were due for changes in the way they were sieged on both a rule and functional level, with actual coding being added in to aid in this process and enforcing the rules. Sadly this post which I believe was done by Alley was deleted during the rollback, however I believe the specific release date was originally called for before we had the rollback.

While obviously the rollback has taken up a lot of everyone's time and energy and many feel discouraged by it, keeping the community up to date as well as meeting commitments like release dates can only help to improve the communities trust in the current team.

With that said, an official admin statement relating to these base changes as well as possibly a new release timeline would be very much appreciated.