Admin Feedback Thread (Archived)

[Garrett Jax]

The Admins volunteer their time to care for many aspects of the server. Their responsibilities include enforcing server and forum rules. They also activate new forum accounts. They process various requests including SRP's, Core Upgrade Requests, Faction Creation Requests, Official Faction Perk Requests, Player Requests, Unique Ship Requests, and individual requests from players via PM or Skype that cover a wide range of needs. Additionally, they care for players who have Lost Ships/Accounts, Stuck in Connecticut, Missing Powerplants or have Accounts Banned for non rule violating reasons.

There are other responsibilities that Admins care for, many of them time consuming. For example, tracking down evidence of cheaters/hackers. Many of the Admins spend countless hours talking to players or faction leaders on Skype about various issues that concern them, or simply wanting feedback on some of their ideas. Muddling through Rule violation reports and processing Sanctions takes much time as well.

On top of these duties, the Admins regularly get together to discuss relevant and timely topics that relate to the server. These matters are voted on weekly, and if approved, announced to the Community, and implemented. After all these duties are cared for, they try to find time to actually play the game, which doesn't amount to very much.

Keeping these things in mind, the Admins are opening up this Admin Feedback Thread in order to get community input on how we are serving their needs. This is not a thread to argue any sanction that an individual might have received. The place for that is in your Sanction thread. This is also not a thread to campaign for a spot on the Staff. Lastly, this is not Flood. If you take this thread seriously, we will treat you seriously. If you want to be respected and listened too, then post with a respectful attitude. The Mods will be instructed to invise any post here that does not meet these fair guidelines.

We want to serve the community as best as possible. If you feel an Admin has done his/her job well, then post here noting it. If you feel an Admin could do better, post that too. Hopefully, this thread will provide the Admins with ways in which we can improve the quality of our service towards the community.

---

[Jinx]

missing transparency:

It is often simply not clear enough how you guys came to a decision. It is said that each and every decision is a communal effort - but for some reason - at least to me... it rarely feels like it. ( especially when it is mentioned that there are times to rush through reports for example - i simply cannot imagine the team sitting together to discuss each report fairly and objectively )

also - SRP approvals/disapprovals - do not only write "approved" but write approved WHY... and if a SRP was rejected - also write WHY ... openly, publicly - so that other players can learn from successes and mistakes.

or if you cannot - or do not want to go on with events ( like mining rotations etc. ) - state that things stop - and why they stop - even or especially when the reasons are mundane like "no time" or "i don t feel like doing the work now.."


the greater good in mind:

Sometimes sanctions seem to satisfy a sort of frustration or vengeance rather than acting as a means to better the community.


synchronizing patterns and processes:

it is unacceptable to browse unmarked threads for bits and pieces of "green" to further understand the finer limitations of a rule. Although it is said that precidents are not the basis for future sanctions, such precidents are often cited - and the better informed forum dwellers are safer than the ones that "just know the official rules". Noted and raised already- Tunicle

But knowing the official rules should be sufficient never to get sanctioned in the first place. When a rule gets refined and/or adds relevant precidents - those precidents should always be included in the rule - at least as an example.


more - lets call them "non violent" sanctions:

the goal is to allow a better gameplay by achieving a win-win situation. a reported player should not be made a villain but offered ways to improve. a ban or the removal of stuff without proper instruction is insuficient in my opinion.


a better sanction explanation:

if the sanction threads are what is meant to better the sanctioned players - i can confidently say ... they are not enough. they are cryptic by cyting the rule - but often not the idea of the rule on an individual basis. - they are also in some cases written in a mockery or spiteful manner further estranging players and marking them as "unwanted".

also the first step should ALWAYS be to talk to the offender - get their point of view ( because your justice system really is only based on the reporter - and a decision is often made without consulting the reported ) ... Too often sanctioned players come to the forum being totally obvlivious about what happened - only to be redirected to the sanction threads.

---

Shipdesigns made for DiscoveryGC

[Diamanten Vorposten]

Thank you for dedicating your time and efforts for free to help and maintain such a very good server of freelancer considered the last active and survivable server so far. god's speed admin team.

[jammi]

Don't know how much of this will be applicable, seeing as I was on the team a long, long time ago, but I can try and clarify some of this with my own experiences.

missing transparency:

It is often simply not clear enough how you guys came to a decision. It is said that each and every decision is a communal effort - but for some reason - at least to me... it rarely feels like it. ( especially when it is mentioned that there are times to rush through reports for example - i simply cannot imagine the team sitting together to discuss each report fairly and objectively )

How much discussion a report gets very much depends on the complexity of the situation. As an example, a clearcut case where there is absolutely no dispute in what happened could be cleared by one (in desperate circumstances) or usually two people. Generally, what happens is an admin will go and leave a post with their thoughts on every notice in the reports subforum. This allows consensus on a course of action to be built very quickly, without the discussion being sidetracked or lost on Skype. For simple cases, the second responder can then clear the case. If it's more complicated, they'll wait for more discussion to build a firmer position on what to do.

also - SRP approvals/disapprovals - do not only write "approved" but write approved WHY... and if a SRP was rejected - also write WHY ... openly, publicly - so that other players can learn from successes and mistakes.

I can see pros and cons to this. I think on Discovery people get so wrapped up in the idea of trial by forum, that publicly posting anything that is specific to an individual/situation is considered taboo. This isn't necessarily helpful, because the wider public can benefit from seeing why things are/aren't permitted.

However, that's not why most people want to see - most people (and it's the same reason sanction threads involving faction ships tends to get many, many more views than others) tend to derive a somewhat gory pleasure from watching a trainwreck play out. And that's what a public disapproved SRP would basically be - the admin team publicly shaming someone by explaining that their RP is bad. I really get why they don't want to put that justification 'out there' for everyone to see, because it's a very emotive and touchy subject for the person involved.

If there's a way to reconcile the first and second paragraph into something workable, I'm all ears though.

or if you cannot - or do not want to go on with events ( like mining rotations etc. ) - state that things stop - and why they stop - even or especially when the reasons are mundane like "no time" or "i don t feel like doing the work now.."

For a short while, I was the event coordinator. I suppose this would've been a good idea when I burnt out, but in practical terms I'd dropped off the Discovery radar completely then and wasn't really in a position to be posting about anything, let alone notifying people that cargo events wouldn't be happening. Best case scenario, a stop update would be nice but isn't always going to happen due to the nature of the stoppage.

I think a potentially good way to get around this would be to write up 10-15 'event packages' and have a script that either cycles through them regularly, or randomises them over the course of a year. Other than the high initial workload, cargo and mining events would then look after themselves, and the admin team could then focus on other stuff.

Sometimes sanctions seem to satisfy a sort of frustration or vengeance rather than acting as a means to better the community.

That might be the reason someone reports an incident, but it's definitely not how it's processed. Once an event's reported, ball's in the admin's courts and unless they can see that someone has clearly baited the other person, things are dealt with objectively. With the baiting angle, that's when the situation becomes "complicated", and the procedures I mentioned above kick in. And yes, sanctions are basically designed to be punitive. It's in the name, funnily enough. Probably why they're not called 'reprimands' or 'advisories'.

it is unacceptable to browse unmarked threads for bits and pieces of "green" to further understand the finer limitations of a rule. Although it is said that precidents are not the basis for future sanctions, such precidents are often cited - and the better informed forum dwellers are safer than the ones that "just know the official rules".

But knowing the official rules should be sufficient never to get sanctioned in the first place. When a rule gets refined and/or adds relevant precidents - those precidents should always be included in the rule - at least as an example.


more - lets call them "non violent" sanctions:

the goal is to allow a better gameplay by achieving a win-win situation. a reported player should not be made a villain but offered ways to improve. a ban or the removal of stuff without proper instruction is insuficient in my opinion.

I'd agree here. Having a place where all of the clarifications could be codified in a sort of Q&A format would be really helpful as an appendix to the rules.

a better sanction explanation:

if the sanction threads are what is meant to better the sanctioned players - i can confidently say ... they are not enough. they are cryptic by cyting the rule - but often not the idea of the rule on an individual basis. - they are also in some cases written in a mockery or spiteful manner further estranging players and marking them as "unwanted".

also the first step should ALWAYS be to talk to the offender - get their point of view ( because your justice system really is only based on the reporter - and a decision is often made without consulting the reported ) ... Too often sanctioned players come to the forum being totally obvlivious about what happened - only to be redirected to the sanction threads.

Snark probably doesn't help, but was generally reserved for repeat offenders who'd been warned off in the past and hadn't learned - or else people who were obviously trolling and also didn't care. Don't know about now, but you're right that it probably isn't helpful. Catering to an audience tends to make the targeted individual upset (which funnily enough was also the problem with the SRP transparency suggestion).

As for the second part - absolutely not, no. Very often it's a serious pain to know who an offender even is without an inordinate amount of work. Normally the easiest way to find out is to bop them on the head with a sanction notice and see what surfaces on the forum. All sanctions are processed because they have met a minimum threshold of evidence. This can be collaborated with server logs and other administrative tools to ascertain a problem has actually occurred.

Earlier on you stated that you were skeptical that the team consulted with each other before processing notices - but then you'd also expect them to consult with every offender prior to processing the notice, too? It's an unworkable suggestion, and also the reason why there is an appeal function. If the offender has a legitimately mitigating circumstance, or proof that vindicates them / shows the report was malicious, then justice has prevailed and the notice is corrected.

Admins will always talk to an offender if they're actually willing to engage with them. Someone who digs their heels in, screams and obstinately refuses to admit any wrong doing "just because" without any supporting evidence is likely to get an equally curt reply.

As I said, this is all based on past experience, so I don't know how much holds up now.

Nice summation, nothing drastically different now - Tunicle

[Alestone]

Don't know how much of this will be applicable, seeing as I was on the team a long, long time ago, but I can try and clarify some of this with my own experiences.

missing transparency:

It is often simply not clear enough how you guys came to a decision. It is said that each and every decision is a communal effort - but for some reason - at least to me... it rarely feels like it. ( especially when it is mentioned that there are times to rush through reports for example - i simply cannot imagine the team sitting together to discuss each report fairly and objectively )

How much discussion a report gets very much depends on the complexity of the situation. As an example, a clearcut case where there is absolutely no dispute in what happened could be cleared by one (in desperate circumstances) or usually two people. Generally, what happens is an admin will go and leave a post with their thoughts on every notice in the reports subforum. This allows consensus on a course of action to be built very quickly, without the discussion being sidetracked or lost on Skype. For simple cases, the second responder can then clear the case. If it's more complicated, they'll wait for more discussion to build a firmer position on what to do.

I appreciate your explanation of the process, but I believe that what is meant is that there should be a summation of what happened. A sanction is DIscovery's version of court. Sometimes, we need to know what and why. Some of the "cases" are pretty cut and dried; engaging without RP, etc, but others need a summary of events after the thing is closed, if for no other reason than to tell the rest of us what not to do in the future.

Yes, I know that there is a potential for abuse there, but there is also a potential for reduction in the Admin workload by educating the populous.

[jammi]

I still don't see why it's necessary. If Jinx's very good suggestion of an area where clarifications can be codified was put into effect, contentious sanctions could then be used as anonymised case-studies to provide clarification. i.e. phrase what the person did wrong as, "am I allowed to do 'x' or not?" and you then have a concrete answer without any specific individual being dragged over the coals.

At the end of the day, to some people it's nice to think of the Administration as some kind of executive which needs a legislative/judiciary branch to keep it in check, but it's not really. It's all three things and they're only as accountable as they decide to be.

Honestly, overburdening them with requests for transparency in cases where it'll only upset people when the same function could easily be replicated in a better format elsewhere strikes me as a bit pointless. Similarly, I'd rather have an admin team that was effective and robust than one that was constantly auditing itself for the gratification of onlookers, slowing it down and probably only serving to increase criticism of the team (and burnout).

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.

[aerelm]

It is often simply not clear enough how you guys came to a decision. It is said that each and every decision is a communal effort - but for some reason - at least to me... it rarely feels like it. ( especially when it is mentioned that there are times to rush through reports for example - i simply cannot imagine the team sitting together to discuss each report fairly and objectively )

As mentioned a few times in the past, every admin decision other than sanctions* follows a straightforward and systematic course: First the subject is initially discussed on Skype among the admins present at the time (Usually 3 to 5), then a discussion thread is posted for it in our subforum where it gets a more thorough discussion (which is generally left open for 4 - 7 days), then the conclusion of that thread is put to vote (open for 7 days, so every admin gets to vote on it, but it's usually wrapped up before the deadline when it's decided) and if it's approved, a notice is posted for it (with the admin posting the notice picked at random, and generally one of the greens who wasn't part of the initial discussion, to better reflect the "collective decision" aspect of each move), and if it's not approved it's either re-discussed or dismissed based on the situation. Also, on the subject of transparency: as of we have been posting open community discussion threads along with the admin discussion one for any major change and taking the input of that thread into account before reaching the actual voting stage.

To use this very thread as an example of how admin discussion works: The idea was first brought up by one admin around a week ago, and once the Skype discussion was concluded another admin posted a discussion thread for it which remained open for a few days, then it was included in the next vote, where it received input from every admin (and it's worth noting that our voting process is not a simple Y/N, and each one of the greens include an elaboration on their vote), and after the vote had passed, which was followed by the usual "so who gets to post this one?" discussion on Skype, Garrett posted the thread. So, as you can see, no individual admin is ever responsible for the notice they're posting and it's always the collective decision of the team. That is why it's been repeatedly stated that no individual admin in responsible for a decision or a sanction simply because they're the one posting the notice for it.

* In case of typical/obvious violations such as F1 and so on, the report always receives input from at least two admins before being processed by a third one. In more complicated cases, though, it's processed through an actual discussion system, and the more severe punishments such as bans are always put through an actual vote before being decided.

SRP approvals/disapprovals - do not only write "approved" but write approved WHY... and if a SRP was rejected - also write WHY ... openly, publicly - so that other players can learn from successes and mistakes.

Owners of unsuccessful SRP requests are always sent a PM after their request is processed, including explanation on why their request was denied and a suggestion or two on things they can alter/improve to increase their chances when they repost the request. The reason failed SRPs are not made visible is because we don't want it to turn into "public shaming", as that would discourage people from going for promising fresh ideas (as is the intention of the SRP system) if they're not 100% sure about it. As for the approved SRPs, reading the actual request is already a good enough way of "learning from their success" (as you put it), and including a specific set of reasons on why the SRP was approved would most likely produce the side-effect of some people trying to replicate that success through the exact same methods, which takes the originality out of the system.

[Zen_Mechanics]

Well That's odd, I don't see a fair treatment whenever I file my own SRP application. It is always being rejected due to weird taboo. SRP is all about opening more room for the character which the former ID doesn't - Yet you systematically deny anything that involves Zoner and particularly me. So it's not enough that the role-play is genunine and legit and that it qualifies, its all about convinience and paperwork so naturaly you would automatically call it a boo. "Zoners are not millitant" I hear quiet often, when I made it perfectly clear that I intend to leave the generic zoners - Yet that somehow escaped your attention, if you even had any attention at all. Every SRP I find myself explaining things that I wrote black and white, Do you people even read the thing or just make up things? I don't ask you permission to role-play, I ask you to give me the tools to continue the role-play - But you discard it - Every single time, for silly reasons, Prejudice perhaps?

---

Were fools to make war on our brothers in arms.

[Garrett Jax]

To be perfectly candid, Zen. You have submitted several SRP requests. Several different members of the Staff, both Admin and Moderators have reviewed your requests. Usually, there are three different Staff members per request. Not one single Staff member has ever approved your SRP request due to various reasons. Claiming prejudice might be fair if it were one or two of the same Staff members, but the whole Staff? It is my belief that it is due to the quality of the SRP request themselves that your SRP requests have been continually disapproved.

---

[[FL-ER]]

I'm very happy with the Admins works so far!

as a noob crazy player that wanted to create and lead a faction i am thankfull for the admins for helping me with a bunch of details i had questions about, i talked to some of you via pm here on the forum and you were always very nice and helpfull to me

you motivated me to keep working on my faction!

~freelancer-soares

---

Links:
| Feedback & Information | Recruitment Office | History | Missions & Operations |
| Report Center & General Annoucements | Poster | Attack on Leeds |

Contracts:
| Contracts & Bounty Boards |